Animals in Scientific Procedures

Lord Smith of Clifton: rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures (HL Paper 150, Session 2001–02).

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to present this report. All Select Committee reports deal with important matters of moment, but I venture to suggest that few have to tackle so vexed an issue as laboratory animals: it is a subject which polarises opinion. Excluding, of course, the extremists, whose activities all reasonable people deplore, it was heartening that the report has been generally well received by both sides in the debate. That is not to suggest that there is in any sense unanimity about our proposals—major and minor reservations have been raised—but the overall reception that the report has received indicates that, at the very least, it will have helped to shape future debate on the subject and will serve as a major point of reference and departure.
	The committee was appointed on 13th March 2001 and reported in July 2002—the general election interrupted its early deliberations. Essentially, the membership was composed of lay people. Only one of us—the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior—has ever held a project licence for animal experiments. His considerable professional expertise was an invaluable source of interpretation and elucidation on technical matters for the rest of us. But I must stress that the other 10 members of the Select Committee addressed our terms of reference with little or no specialist knowledge of the subject. We were very much a lay jury and not in any sense, except the literal one, "a peer review". If we had any strength at all, it derived from our status as lay people coming to conclusions on a complex issue of great public importance.
	At the outset, I wish to pay warm tribute to my colleagues. They are a very heterogeneous group of very independent minds, ranging from the distinguished philosopher, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—if I may put it that way. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has assured the Select Committee's place in history with the publication of her recent book, Nature and Mortality. In it, she describes the noble Earl as "ebullient", "irrepressibly talkative", and,
	"an excellent member of the Committee, though the chairman sometimes has to suppress him".
	I am not sure about the qualification "sometimes", but, that apart, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, paints an accurate sketch of the character of the Select Committee and its mode of operation.
	Despite our heterogeneous composition, we worked well together and produced a unanimous report. I thank my colleagues for their contributions and their assiduity: they collectively achieved an attendance record of 77 per cent. I also endorse the judgment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, as to the,
	"outstanding excellence of our Clerk",
	Dr Thomas Elias. He was brilliant and helpful. We were also well served by our special adviser, the Reverend Professor Michael Reiss of the University of London Institute of Education.
	The committee drew six broad conclusions from its deliberations, together with 24 recommendations. We could, of course, have come up with many more, as the subject lends itself to that, but we deliberately chose to be as parsimonious in this regard as was feasible so as to focus on the priorities as we saw them. Our conclusions were designed to put our recommendations in context.
	Other members of the Select Committee will draw your Lordships' attention to particular points that our report contains. I shall confine myself to what I think are our most important conclusions and shall comment on the reception that the report has received from the scientific and industrial community and the animal welfare community and on the Government's formal response to the committee's report.
	At the outset, perhaps I may reiterate that, by and large, the report has been welcomed by both sides of the debate. That should have prompted the Government—by which I mean the Home Office—to have been bolder and more imaginative in framing their own response. Goodness knows, it took long enough to respond, scraping in only just within the conventional six-month deadline.
	In many respects, the Government's response is negative and complacent and displays no sense of urgency whatever. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who knows more than most about inquiries and their ultimate destinies, presciently concluded in her book:
	"Whether what we recommend will make any difference to the practices of the Home Office is doubtful".
	Certainly, little action has been initiated in the past 14 months. It is also to be regretted that the government response is exclusively confined to the Home Office when other Whitehall departments have responsibilities for aspects of the committee's work, including health, education and work, and trade and industry. All impact on animal experimentation in different ways, and it is unfortunate that there is no evidence of any recognition of this intergovernmental dimension in the formal response.
	However, I congratulate the Government on deciding, albeit at the 13th hour, that the Minister responsible for science, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, would reply to the debate. If I may say so—I appreciate it because he is extremely jet-lagged—it gives the right signal to both the scientific community and the welfare groups, and I hope it is a sign that the Government will now deal with the recommendations in our report more expeditiously than heretofore.
	I turn now to the recommendations to which I wish to draw attention today. The first one that I want to emphasise is that which calls for a severe culling of the bureaucracy involved in the application and amendment of project licences. In evidence, we saw some applications extending to many hundreds of pages. That is unnecessary and time-consuming and places both the United Kingdom's academia and the pharmaceutical industry in an internationally uncompetitive position and, equally importantly, is deleterious to the welfare of animals. The government response says, rather reluctantly, that they will consider the simplification of project licences and, in classic Civil Service language, that they,
	"will revisit this matter with the research community",
	adding ominously that,
	"Licences must be as long as they need to be for essential regulatory purposes, but not a page longer than that".
	I ask the Minister what positive steps the Government have undertaken in the past 18 months in this regard. I doubt whether his answer will be encouraging. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said yesterday that there has been no progress, and it looks as though the length of the licensing form may well increase.
	A corollary to this proposal is the recommendation that local ethical review committees should be given delegated powers from the Home Office to approve routine or minor amendments to project licences. That would reduce time and bureaucracy and have important benefits for animal welfare. While the Government agree in principle, they argue that that would need primary legislation which,
	"would not in our view be justified".
	Asserting that it would not be justified adds nothing whatever to the debate. It is simply using another classic, weasel-worded stalling device, which is all too common in the Home Office.
	While on the question of local ethical review committees, the Select Committee advocated the appointment of an external lay member for each committee, whose term of office should be time-limited. That would go a long way to reassure the public that such committees, usually bereft of such genuine independent advice, are not mere rubber stamps. The Home Office flatly rejects that because,
	"some establishments, particularly the smaller ones, have found it difficult to identify and recruit lay members".
	That is risible. What real evidence have the Government for that assertion? How hard have establishments tried to recruit lay members; not very, I suspect. In the United States it is a legal requirement.
	One of our most important recommendations was for the establishment of a centre for the 3Rs: reduction, refinement and replacement of animals. The 3Rs was a concept developed by Russell and Burch as long ago as 1959. It has been accepted internationally as the foundation of best practice. The problem is that positive development is not pursued as a focused activity. Most scientists claim that they assiduously apply the 3Rs in the course of their work, saying that it is intrinsic to their endeavours from both an ethical and an economic point of view. But the application of the 3Rs is often routine.
	We believe that a centre for 3Rs should be set up, consisting of a small administrative hub, which would co-ordinate research units embedded in existing centres of scientific excellence. That would give a focus to the development of the 3Rs, would enhance the status of this important aspect of science and, most vitally, would be an earnest of intention on the part of both the scientific community and the Government to those animal welfare groups that may otherwise be sceptical. Moreover, in vitro and in silico alternative methods may well provide more accurate experimentation for, at best, animals are only imperfect models for humans.
	That suggestion, I am pleased to say, found some favour with the Home Office. For its part, the Medical Research Council stated:
	"Although we do not agree with the Select Committee that a single centre (with hub and spokes) for the 3Rs is the right approach, we would support further co-ordination in this area. The MRC's Centre for Best Practice in Animal Research . . . is starting to fulfil this role . . . In addition to expanding the role of the CBPAR, the MRC is also keen to see more research directly aimed at the 3Rs and will be encouraging this through special funding arrangements".
	That is heartening and the fact that our report has prompted that positive, if limited, reaction is welcome. By the same token it is gratifying to note that the Lord Dowding Fund and the Dr Hadwen Trust have strongly endorsed our proposal for a centre for the 3Rs.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister for a situation report on what progress has been made towards creating a centre for the 3Rs. His honourable friend, the then Minister in another place, Mr Bob Ainsworth, in a Written Answer of 10th June stated that a progress report is expected in the autumn. Is it expected any day now?
	Another area of great importance is that of public information and ease of access to it. That was covered by two recommendations we made. First, we proposed that the substantive details of anonymised project licences, which describes the projected benefits of the research and harm to the animals involved, should be made public after they have been approved and funded. The Government would sanction publishing only licence summaries. Secondly, we argued for improved official statistics. To that end serious effort should be made to provide better figures on animal suffering.
	The inspectorate should develop or approve a scoring system for animal suffering, which should be used for all project licences. At the moment the system of averaging out the range of suffering involved in a project obscures the degrees of serious harm inflicted. The Government agree with that in principle but again effectively kick it into the long grass, stating,
	"the difficulty of devising a method of capturing this information should not be underestimated".
	But they undertake,
	"as a first stage, [to] seek views on the information that would be of use as part of the wider review of the statistics",
	for which the Select Committee had also called. The Government agree that these,
	"are not presented in a readily digestible form",
	and will initiate a review. Again, I would ask the Minister to say what steps have been taken, first, with regard to devising a scoring system and, secondly, with regard to the more general review of statistics.
	Is the Home Office on trend to get the desirable net increase in inspectors it aims at, and by what date will that be achieved? The inspectorate is the only specifically laboratory-animal trained one in the world and in the main does a good job invigilating the laboratories in its charge. My one criticism is that corporately it displays an over-bureaucratic mindset, which is too defensive of the status quo. It follows that the inspectorate is not really amenable to innovations it has not collectively made. This attitude can be vividly seen in the inspectorate's self-serving review of the ethical review committee system.
	Finally, I want to mention one other important recommendation. We proposed that the inspectorate should convene a forum to meet regularly to discuss specific scientific and welfare issues related to the use of animals in experiments. That would assist in reducing the polarity of attitudes between scientists and animal welfare groups, which would be conducive to more rational and coherent debate. It might also contribute to a monitoring of future developments and, it is to be hoped, on occasions a more agreed and consensual approach as to the future course of action.
	The Select Committee convened a one-day conference in the Moses Room that encompassed the most inclusive gathering of all the main parties on the issue of animal experiments, excluding, of course, animal terrorists. By general consent, it was deemed a worthwhile exercise, generating more "heat than light"—Freudian slip there—light than heat on my own cost/benefit analysis and it greatly assisted our deliberations. The Government agree that it should become a routine feature, but not one that the inspectorate should organise. Perhaps I may ask the Minister who the Government have in mind to initiate this worthwhile forum.
	The issue of animal experimentation will continue to be, quite properly, an important topic on the public agenda. The report of the Select Committee, it is to be hoped, will have facilitated how best the public dialogue may profitably be progressed. It is to be welcomed that the Nuffield Foundation has recently created a council on bioethics, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, to carry the issues forward, with similar terms of reference to those of the Select Committee.
	The Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, reporting on chemicals in industrial products, echoed our views on the need for animal testing but, equally, the vital need to pursue the development of alternatives, so that animals would no longer be used. The membership of the Animal Procedures Committee has been strengthened. Such developments are good auguries. All that is now needed is greater energy, positive imagination and a quickening of the pace on the part of the Government.
	An Early Day Motion of 12th February in another place attracted no fewer than 224 signatories from all sides expressing exasperation with the Government. It stated:
	"That this House is concerned at the Government's response to the House of Lords Report on the use of animals in scientific procedures; notes that this report received widespread backing from both the animal welfare and scientific communities; and calls upon the Government to implement the main recommendations of the report forthwith".
	That says it all.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures (HL Paper 150, Session 2001–02).—(Lord Smith of Clifton.)

Lord Winston: My Lords, I thank the Select Committee which produced this excellent report and its chairman the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for his thorough and succinct introduction of this debate.
	This is certainly a very timely issue. I declare an interest. I am possibly the only current licence holder for animal research in the Chamber. In that respect I must tell your Lordships of a recent discussion that I had with my own religious leader. I framed the certificate signed by the president of the Institute of Biology that granted me my training credentials. The certificate reads that Professor Robert Winston is now qualified to operate on mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbi. So nothing in the regulatory framework is perfect.
	The first point I need to make is that there is a huge and important need for animal research. In my view many things get obfuscated in the scientific debate, and we often concentrate on the wrong things. For example, the Government have given a huge amount of investment, progress and profile, to the Genome Project, as of course they should.
	However, in actual terms of human welfare and the prospects for human life, there is no question but that a far more important issue scientifically is the issue of animal research. My view as a scientist is that animal research is absolutely essential to promoting well-being, to exploring the science of biology better and to understanding the Genome Project. One key aspect of animal research is that using the intact animal—normally a mouse—gives us a dynamic assessment of what genes are actually doing in a way that no other experiment, either in tissue or in any other situation, can possibly do. That is a very important point. It comes back to one response that the Government have made, and something about which I want to ask my noble friend in a second.
	My second point is about this committee, which was first set up in 2001. Indeed, I guess that in a small way I was partly responsible as the then chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We felt generally that this was an important debate but that, because in the main those on that committee were scientists and had the expertise, we would therefore be disbarred largely from holding the committee ourselves. So a completely independent committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, explained, was very properly set up. It grows in strength because it does not have people sitting on it such as myself with that kind of vested interest.
	This is a truly independent committee. Its approach to the issue is extremely fresh and it has made some extremely valuable observations about the importance and deficiencies of the regulatory procedures.
	I have a number of specific questions to ask my noble friend. They are addressed in the report, and the issues seems to me to be of very great importance. The first question I need to ask the Minister is: why is there still very often a considerable slowness in replying to requests for project licences? As I explained when giving evidence to the committee (I was called to give evidence), in the United States, where I work a great deal of the time—indeed, I have laboratory work going on in California at this moment—I can get proper, ethical, peer-reviewed licences to do work on large animals, not just mice, within two to three weeks of my application through the institution itself. That organisation is every bit as thorough in how it conducts the proper surveillance of animal research as any laboratory in the United Kingdom.
	We might think that we have the best system in terms of animal care. Actually, the quality and standards of animal care in this country are extremely high, but we should not forget that there are other countries which have an equally high standard. My experience of three different laboratories—in Texas, on the east coast of America and most recently in California at the Californian Institute of Technology, or Caltech—is that they are of the highest standards. We could do much by examining their system, which puts that in place. It is of course rather more expensive. That is one of the issues to be considered.
	However, the fact is that my practical experience in this country is that it takes many months to get animal licences. That is unacceptable, particularly if you are working in a field which is scientifically highly competitive. I know that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury deeply believes in the need to drive our intellectual economy. We cannot do that if we are competing against the odds where other research can be done much faster because of the bureaucracy in the Home Office. It is a very real issue for the research scientists.
	The second point is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has already referred. I hope that my noble friend will take some time to explain exactly what the Home Office meant. I know that he can speak only for the Home Office, but it would be helpful if he could convey our concern back to the Home Office about the bureaucracy involved in an application and the length of those applications. Very often, that seems to us unnecessary, particularly because so many animal research applications are extremely simple, involve no suffering at all to animals and simply require regulation and surveillance that the animals are being kept in a proper and appropriate environment and are being cared for without their undergoing any kind of suffering from that environment. That is a very real issue. Of course some project applications will require considerable time and will probably require rather more pages but the bulk of applications certainly do not.
	One problem is that if, half-way through an experiment, an experimenter recognises that the design of the experiment needs to change, because he has now produced some new data to examine something afresh, he cannot alter that project licence. He has to go back to the inspectorate. He has to go through the same rigmarole in order to get that approval. That is very counterproductive to good science and to working on the unexpected. Science is about the unpredictable. So often, we consider the unpredictable in our laboratories far too complacently. Truthfully, it is when things arise unexpectedly in a project that we really need to be able to react to unexpected findings and consider why they are happening.
	My third question for my noble friend is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, did not refer, but which is important. It is the question of returns for transgenic animals. I am grateful that the committee paid some attention to the issue. In my view—in that of most biologists, I think—during the coming years the number of transgenic animals that will be needed in research will spiral. There are real needs to put genes into mice to understand how genes work. I must tell your Lordships in all faith, being involved in transgenic technology myself—I do that sort of work in my laboratory—that such mice do not suffer. They do not have abnormalities of their phenotype; they do not look different from other mice; but we can see what is happening in the working dynamic of the intact animal.
	It makes absolutely no sense under the current return system. The current return system means that every transgenic animal, usually a mouse, that is produced must be recorded in the statistics. Moreover, those mice cannot be moved without permission from one laboratory to another—even though they are scampering around their cages, climbing on their wheels and doing all the other things that mice like to do in their spare time, without the slightest problem. That is nonsense. The Home Office's response is grossly inadequate in that respect. There should be a way to tackle that important issue, which was raised by the committee.
	My fourth question refers to a simple issue concerning surgical training. As a once practising surgeon—I hardly practise at all now—and having been involved with microsurgical experiments in their earliest stage, I can vouch for the need for such surgical training on animals. At present, surgeons are training on human patients. That cannot be terribly sensible. It must make sense to have live tissues shown to a surgeon.
	It is of course deeply regrettable that in modern biology, students at school cannot now see intact animals as I did, when I saw mice, rabbits, rats and other animals being dissected in the classroom. But when it comes to medical schools, it must be of advantage to ensure that there is adequate training on live tissues of terminally anaesthetised animals. As the report mentions, how many licences have been given for training in manual skills other than for microsurgical purposes?
	If I have a criticism of the report, it is simple. It is marginally regrettable that it places insufficient emphasis on the fact that the standards of quality of care in United Kingdom laboratories are as high as they are and that the dedication of the staff working in them is as great as it is. Believe me, the quality of that care and the ethical attitudes of those people—often working under great stress, sometimes in darkened basements with diminished incomes—are of great credit. Those people are in many ways the backbone of British biology. I pay tribute to them. We should recognise that the quality of care is extraordinarily good, and was so before the Select Committee met.
	Finally, I want to discuss some aspects of major importance in science. One thing that we scientists have got wrong—I am as responsible for this as anyone—is our complacent belief that the mere communication of science—goodness knows, I have done that often enough—is adequate to persuade the public of what we are doing. It is now clear that communication—however it is performed, whether through the Royal Society, the Royal Institution, television or the media—is not the key or the answer. We must understand that the public must feel that they can take ownership of the science.
	An important point is made in the report that deserves implementation: the need to promulgate the experiments that are being performed to show people their benefits. Perhaps we should state on every packet of pills prescribed across the counter of every pharmacy, "These drugs were made possible only by the use of animal research", because that is the absolute truth. Most members of the public are not prepared to recognise that when they receive a vaccination or take a pill—even paracetamol.
	We scientists have been poor at going above the parapet on animal research. There are notable exceptions, such as Professor Colin Blakemore, now director of the Medical Research Council. I have had the bomb squad round to my house and the street cordoned off, so I understand the threat, but we must be much more public. We must be prepared to speak out to explain why the public must take ownership of science.
	Next, as well the need for the Government to help—they have not been helpful in this area—there is a need to recognise that we as scientists must demonstrate our ethical attitudes and provenance. We are not good at showing ethical judgment. For example, if we consider my field of embryology, Jamie Grifo in the United States mixed the DNA in two of a woman's eggs and transferred that back to the uterus of a woman—a Chinese woman—who has now become pregnant to 30 weeks. That is a scandalous experiment. It should never have been read at any major scientific meeting; the peer review process should have prevented it occurring. The fact is that we are not showing the right ethical attitudes. The animal research should have been done first.
	Finally, we must recognise that one difficulty in this field is commercialisation of research and scientific attitudes towards commercialisation. That is a sensitive issue, but that commercialisation, especially from drug companies, is one of our major scientific strengths and one of the biggest reasons why we have as healthy a population in the United Kingdom as we do. The Select Committee report is excellent; I recommend its wholehearted acceptance by the Government. It is sad that parts of it have not yet been properly taken on board.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has regulated animal experimentation for 17 years. As noble Lords have said, it is one of the most rigorous pieces of legislation in the world governing animal experimentation. So it should be, but it should not be rigid. One criticism made by research workers in the field is the lack of adaptation to developments in modern biological science, such as animal sentience and our better understanding of how animals behave and how we should provide for them in experimental situations. It has also been criticised by anti-vivisectionists for its lack of rigidity. So it is timely to review the regulatory legislation to assess what changes are required and what new developments in biological science mandate new approaches.
	As the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned, the inquiry was conducted by members who, with the exception of me, had little or no practical experience of animal experimentation and who have never held a Home Office licence to conduct such experiments. Hence there was no conflict of interest, and the committee should be warmly congratulated on its quick understanding and identification of the issues to be addressed.
	In particular, I congratulate the chairman on his skilful handling of the committee, our Clerk, who demonstrated the exemplary competence that we have come to expect of committee Clerks, and our scientific adviser, who showed the agility of mind to understand both biological and experimental science and to marry them with the ethical issues involved, the Reverend Professor Michael Reiss.
	The conclusions that we came to are important. First, it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals for research but morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering. Secondly, there is a continued need for animal experiments in applied research and research aimed purely at extending knowledge. In that respect, I am reminded of the words of the late Lord Porter, Nobel Laureate for chemistry, who said:
	"There is applied research and there is not yet applied research".
	That neatly emphasises the importance of both.
	As one would expect, those who submitted evidence, of which there was a large amount, and those who commented after the report was published, identified many areas that need attention. Those include the need to extend the inspectorate, which I understand is in progress, and the improvement in administrative support for the inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee at the Home Office. Both matters, if attended to, would greatly assist in, and would speed up, the process of dealing with licences and other aspects of animal experiments.
	Changes since the Act was established include the introduction of an ethical review process. That has been a success and serves to safeguard the welfare of animals in the planning and conduct of experiments. The conduct, composition and functioning of ethical review panels (ERPs) varies between institutions. We recommend a much more formal structure.
	One of the criticisms of the ERP is that extensive time may be taken for a proposal to be processed for approval. The noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Winston, mentioned that. It is particularly so, and can be extremely irritating, when routine or very minor amendments are required in a proposal. We recommend that the Home Office empower local ERPs to approve minor changes. The Government's response is that that would probably require new legislation. But, nevertheless, it is to be hoped that a sensible solution can be reached, as research may be held up while awaiting central approval of even minor modifications. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, research is very fast-moving these days. We are in a very important and fast-moving game—if one can refer to research as such. Delays in the modification of protocols have become quite obvious as research has progressed. If we fail to speed up, we may lose important advantages in this country.
	An innovative proposal in the report is that the details of anonymised project licences, giving the expected benefit and harm to animals, should be made public after approval by the Home Office. That should help to remove criticism that experiments are conducted in secrecy—the charge levelled against the Home Office and science in general. There has been concern about the identification of institutions and scientists involved in research. Information on who is doing what can be gleaned from publications in the scientific literature, but only after the work is done. In the United States, where I worked for some considerable time, following approval of a proposal by the National Institutes of Health, it was placed wholly in the public domain and was available for scrutiny by anyone. That did not seem to harm the research system.
	A consistent and important feature in animal experiments is the application of the three Rs concept, developed by Russell and Burch in 1959. From it, the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) was founded in 1969. I declare an interest as patron of FRAME. The concept of the three Rs—reduction, refinement and replacement—is now accepted worldwide. The three Rs are sometimes referred to as alternatives, but that should not imply that the replacement is for animal experiments as a whole.
	It is now accepted that the three Rs are an important guide in planning and conducting experiments. They encompass many aspects of biological science. The need for testing chemicals is one, but not the only one. However, there is no single approach to almost any experiment or testing. Certainly, the replacement of mammalian organs or biological systems would require much development work; so refinement and reduction become particularly important in that context.
	The committee recognises the importance of the three Rs. It recommends a centre for the three Rs, consisting of a small administrative hub that would co-ordinate research units embedded in other centres of scientific excellence. The concept has come under intense scrutiny and met with some resistance. My noble friend Lady Eccles will deal in more detail with the pros and cons put forward. But, in considering the concept, we start from the point that, if all believe the three Rs to be fundamentally important to animal experimentation, whether we like it or not, hitherto there has been no major effort on the part of scientific establishments or the Government to advance the concept in a meaningful manner. One can, however, exempt certain pharmaceutical companies from that criticism. Only a small amount of research funding is available from the Animal Procedures Committee, but it is woefully inadequate. Good progress can be made in the area, as instanced by the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM).
	We are aware that many developments in the three Rs arise as spin-offs of work which proves to be a better approach to the problem than hitherto. But is it not wiser to rely on something better than serendipity? The three Rs must not be a peripheral initiative but part of mainstream scientific research. There is a multitude of possible avenues with the three Rs concept, but it cannot be encompassed by a single centre. There should be a hub with spokes creating a national network to reach out to major centres of excellence throughout the country. The concept requires development and substantial funding. Critics of the concept should realise that we were not in a position to be prescriptive in the report and did not wish to be so. Some have said that we already have something similar to the centre that I have just mentioned—the MRC Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research. However, that is not the same and is applicable in some ways only to grants funded by the Medical Research Council. It could become part of the hub and spoke system. One gets the impression that the Government are lukewarm about the idea and seem to think that the main task for the centre would be toxicity testing. That is a misunderstanding and I hope that it can be corrected.
	If we are serious about advancing the three Rs for the purposes of good science and animal welfare, as I believe we must be, this dilemma must be carried forward in a much more determined and vigorous way than at present. It must be adequately funded and receive the endorsement of all concerned with animal experimentation. I believe that better and more humane science would be the result.
	In one of our final paragraphs, Paragraph 7.25, we stated that we all realise that animals are highly imperfect models for research. However, that should not be understood to imply that they are valueless. Any model will have its imperfections but, over the years, animal models have proved critically useful in the solution to and the production of methods of control of disease in man and animals. An excellent example of that is given by a paper that I received this morning from the Biosciences Federation. Models have proved critically useful for research over the years and will continue to do so. I believe that the three Rs will play a very important role in that.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, although it now seems a long time ago, I had the honour, as have other noble Lords, of serving on the Select Committee under the admirable and genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, to whom I, like other noble Lords, wish to pay a very warm tribute. I should also declare that, even longer ago, I was chairman of the committee that became the Committee on Animal Procedures, which led to the 1986 Act. I therefore have a very long-standing interest in the workings of that Act. I welcome the fact that there is now a chance to follow up the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee. I will mention one or two randomly selected areas of particular concern about which I would like to ask the Minister for some clarification or updating of the Government response.
	In general, although in the response the Government—or the Home Office—deny complacency, it does seem rather complacent, timid or, should I say, conservative. However, I do not expect the Minister to answer such a vague generalisation. In my view, one of the crucial issues on which the Government have shown unwillingness to extend their thinking beyond the way things are now is in the matter of the role and credibility of the inspectorate itself. There is no doubt that the Home Office inspectors are experienced and professional, and that they generally enjoy a helpful relationship with licence holders and applicants for licences. They are also becoming more numerous, which is good.
	The Government have not, however, properly addressed a major cause of complaint that other noble Lords will emphasise even more strongly: the length of processing time for applications for licences. From April 2002, the Home Office target was to process 85 per cent of applications within 35 days. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made clear, 35 days is already a pretty long time compared with the time it takes to get a licence in the United States. By the end of 2002, it had processed only 75 per cent within the appropriate time, which contrasts with 94 per cent processed within the proper time in 2001. So, far from getting better, things appear to be getting worse.
	In their response to the report of the Select Committee, the Government promise, as we have heard, to revisit the question with a view to simplifying the application procedure, but without any show of conviction that they could possibly succeed. Has any progress been made in this matter? There is, perhaps, a more fundamental question, at least from the point of view of the public interested in animal welfare and the laboratory, and I pay tribute to the committee and all my colleagues on it because it is fair to say that we represented the public and heard a good deal of evidence from members of the public. The question that arises from their point of view is the extent to which they can actually trust the inspectorate to ensure that no unnecessary suffering is caused to animals in the pursuit of toxicological testing, which is 18 percent of all procedures, and in medical and scientific research.
	We know that the inspectorate exercises judgment in that area of research on a cost-benefit basis. The cost is not measured in financial terms, but in animal suffering, and the benefit is the hoped-for benefit from the experimentation itself, although the distinction between immediate and long-term benefits seems somewhat artificial. At any rate, the inspectorate bases its judgment of licence applications on that cost-benefit analysis. However, because the inspectors both advise applicants about their applications for a licence to carry out specific procedures and also monitor the ensuing work, there is, or may seem to be, a danger that the monitoring will not be truly impartial.
	The Select Committee did not recommend separating the two functions of advising and monitoring, but did recommend that some inspections of licensed premises should be carried out by inspectors from areas other than where the laboratories are located, so that their relationship with the licence holders could not become too cosy. Secondly, the committee recommended the establishment of a body charged with reviewing and monitoring the work of the inspectorate as a whole. That is important from the point of view of public trust. On the first of those points, the Government said in their response that it often happened already and need not be made mandatory. On the second, they promised to consider whether some sort of periodic review might contribute to public confidence. Will the Minister tell the House whether that consideration has yet borne fruit?
	That brings me to my other point. The public would have more confidence in the efficacy of the 1986 Act in ensuring the maximum possible care for animals in the laboratory and the advance of science and medicine if the statistical report published annually by the Home Office could be made more accessible and more intelligible, and if a better way could be devised of showing the degree of suffering to which individual animals were subjected. It might come as a surprise to some of the public if they could be made to understand that many of the animals used suffer nothing.
	On that point, the Government's response was, once again, a bit sad. They promised to think about it and to get statisticians to think about it, but they said that it was difficult. The committee knew that it was difficult. Will the Minister tell the House whether progress has been made on that front? It would not be difficult to ensure that the annual report concentrated its attention not simply on the number of procedures, nor on the number of animals used, but on the number of animals who suffer significant pain individually. Other animals are, in that respect, unlike human beings. They cannot count up the number of their fellow sufferers, nor can they present to themselves the thought that it is wrong for the species as a whole to suffer as they suffer, if they do. However, if they suffer, they suffer one by one.
	In a way, the number of animals used makes little difference; it is the degree of suffering to which each animal may be subjected that worries the general public. After all, where rodents are specially bred to be used in research or testing—they form by far the largest group of laboratory animals—the number of animals used is, for the public, far less important than what the animals experience. We cannot make an aggregate sum of pain by counting the rats and mice that experience it. It seems to me and, I think, to the committee that it should be possible to think up a better way of categorising degrees of suffering and showing how intense or minute the suffering was in a particular case. Average figures are useless and, indeed, positively misleading.
	It would be nice to hear from the Minister that the Home Office has been galvanised into activity, innovation and imagination by the Select Committee's report. I cannot see much sign of such a phenomenon. Still, I suppose that I must not be too gloomy. One innovation that should change the level of understanding among the general public has nothing to do with the Home Office: it is the new pilot scheme for a GCSE subject called "Science for the 21st Century", which will allow pupils to address the question of the use of laboratory animals for testing in a properly structured way. That is a good beginning to a wider public understanding of the issues that the Select Committee had to address. Such increased understanding is what the Select Committee and the Government most sincerely want.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Chairman on his excellent chairmanship and the Clerk and the special advisers, who have been mainly responsible for and deserve most of the credit for the report. It is a good report and shows a good sense of balance.
	I would not put as much emphasis as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, did on the aspect of the report that has, perhaps, received most attention: the new centre for the three Rs. I agree with the recommendation because there is a certain conservatism in the scientific profession, but it is often forgotten that most progress towards the three Rs comes from scientists. They have every incentive to promote the three Rs. First, it saves an enormous amount of cost; it is much cheaper to avoid the use of animals. Secondly, it avoids the enormous delays caused by the bureaucracy involved in applying for a licence. Thirdly, experiments are not effective if there is undue stress on the part of the animal. There is every incentive for scientists to minimise the use of animals and cause the minimum suffering.
	That is not the issue that I want to address. I shall concentrate on two issues. The first is bureaucracy. It is constantly said—I have heard Ministers say it—that we have the best system in the world because it is the tightest. Our most important recommendation is that the best system of regulation is not the tightest. It is not the best system if it drives research abroad or stops it coming to this country. It is not the best system if it causes delays and wastes animals as a result. That is counter-productive. It is not the best system if it leads to a mass of unnecessary form-filling.
	Our system is certainly the tightest. Paragraph 5.30 of the report refers to the evidence of Professor Purchase. It says that,
	"the total time taken to prepare a submission for approval and receive approval was 31 weeks in the UK, 17 weeks in Germany, and 6 weeks in the US".
	There is also evidence from France that the time taken for the approval process varies from about two weeks to one month. Certainly, we have the tightest system.
	Next, there is the question of the impact on research. We had some impressive anecdotal evidence, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it was easier to do certain kinds of research abroad. Paragraph 5.31 of the report refers to evidence from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry that,
	"the key issue is the lost opportunities".
	There is a danger that unnecessary bureaucracy will prejudice research in this country. The anti-science forces have already driven agricultural biotechnology out of Britain, and the animal terrorists are doing plenty of work to drive research out. We do not wish to add to that unnecessary bureaucracy.
	The next question is the wastage of animals. Paragraph 5.32 shows that there is no question about that. We had evidence from the Royal Society that,
	"bureaucracy had led to experiments being carried out on three animals instead of on one".
	How can that be of benefit to animals? We had evidence from Professor Blakemore that,
	"a minor amendment to use a new and superior anaesthetic took over three months for approval".
	The report refers to the evidence given by Dr Matfield, from the Research Defence Society, that,
	"amendments to licences had taken so long to be approved that research had become outdated and was therefore abandoned half way through—with the consequent unnecessary use of animals".
	That is wastage of animals.
	Then, there is the question of the forms. We saw some of the forms. One of them was over 300 pages long. It is ludicrous that scientists should have to go into such detail that they must fill in over 300 pages. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. Everybody knows that no scientific programme ever works out as planned; it has to be changed, and delays can be considerable. The simplification of the forms ought to be a high priority. We recommended that the aim should be to have 10 pages. It may not be possible in every case to have a 10-page form, but it would be a wonderful discipline to aim to achieve a form of only 10 pages. It would mean simpler language.
	This is a serious matter; it is not just our committee which pointed out that the forms cause problems. The last report in June of the Animal Procedures Committee, at page 66, when considering the cost/benefit trade-off, states:
	"We believe that there is room for considerable simplification of the licence application form and associated guidance note".
	What did the Home Office say in answer to our application? The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to the fact that the apparent target of 35 clock days has not been achieved; it seems to be getting worse. It said that it would set up a joint committee with scientists to reduce bureaucracy. Could the Minister tell us what happened? As noble Lords have pointed out, I, too, understand that nothing has been done. There is a committee on freedom of information, which has two sub-committees. But the Research Defence Society knows of no working party on lessening bureaucracy. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) apparently reported exactly the same.
	If that is true, it is a scandal. It is disgraceful. We have become a very bureaucratic nation. We love detailed regulations. As a matter of fact we do not, but the civil servants love detailed regulation. I met it as chair of a charity concerned with the treatment of drug offenders at two clinics. It was appalling how much detailed legislation regulates residential care and health and safety. We seem to be aiming for the no-risk society. Civil servants do not wish to be criticised. It means the death of enterprise. Is there no Minister who will turn to civil servants and say, "These regulations are ridiculous. Something up with which we will not put"? It is urgent that we should cease such regulations. It is high time that we should review regulations, in particular, in relation to research.
	My second subject was not explicitly dealt with by the committee, but it is highly germane; namely, animal terrorism. Animal terrorists are a tiny group, but they do immense damage. Everyone knows of the case of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Very bravely, its staff have not been deterred. However, there has been an effective campaign against insurers. It is disgraceful the way that the moment a few people appear with a few placards outside an office in the City, immediately the company caves in. There is pusillanimity in a number of boardrooms, which should not be tolerated.
	Terrorists are now targeting suppliers. Worse in some ways than what happened to Huntingdon Life Sciences is the case of the Halls—guinea pig breeders in Staffordshire who have been terrorised for three years. They are extremely brave people who live on the premises. Terrorists have now targeted their other business. They are dairy farmers and have had to sell their herds and abandon their business because no one is willing to take away their milk. How can we tolerate that kind of behaviour in our democratic society? We should not allow it to happen.
	Either the police are responsible for not doing what they should or we need a change in the law. It is just as important to guard against these terrorists, who are actual terrorists, as against the hypothetical terrorists of Al'Qaeda. Why have the Staffordshire police failed to provide effective protection to the Halls? From time to time, the Home Office says that best practice is being applied. On the face of it, better protection is provided by the Cambridgeshire police for Huntingdon Life Sciences than by the Staffordshire police for the Halls. Is the Home Office satisfied with what is being done? Clearly, we are failing if we cannot protect our citizens from terrorism.
	Police authorities should urgently review the situation. We should also have a coherent set of laws in one piece of legislation to deal effectively with these terrorists. The Research Defence Society and others recommend that there should be one piece of legislation. First, it should be illegal to conspire to organise, incite, support or conduct a campaign of harassment against a legitimate business. Secondly, any demonstration against a work or employment activity in the vicinity of employees and directors' private residences should be illegal, including demonstrations that are in sight or sound of the property and its access routes.
	I am glad to say that, already, the number of protestors required for the police to put restrictions on demonstrations is being reduced. Legislation should allow companies to lodge harassment charges or to act on behalf of employees. It should allow restraining orders to be applied for by companies on behalf of individual employees and should restrict overseas travel of those people with related convictions, as has been done with football hooligans.
	This is an issue which must be tackled. We should also go somewhat further—as a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said—to encourage people to put their heads above the parapets. I wish that we had made a recommendation to that effect. I should have liked the committee to have done more to encourage the brave individuals—such as, Professor Blakemore, Brian Cass and David Hall—who have borne the brunt of terrorist attacks.
	Everyone involved directly or indirectly with experiments should come out into the open. Universities should state openly that they conduct experiments necessary for animal health. Many now pretend that they do not. One university has proclaimed itself as an "animal-free zone". Doctors' surgeries should put up notices which state, "The drugs administered and prescribed by this surgery have been tested on animals to ensure that they are safe". Only if we are open about it will we do our bit to divert attention from the few selected victims who suffer at present.

Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my close friend the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the members of his committee for the report. It is a thorough and very high quality report, which is particularly interesting if read in conjunction with the evidence and the debates between members of the committee and those giving the evidence. I am moved to speak today because for two years I was the lay chair of a local ethical review committee at the university at which I was working. I was a lay chair in the sense that I am not a scientist; I am a philosopher by trade. The university had large and well regarded medical and biological sciences faculties. To some extent, my comments will reflect my experience in that role.
	First, I turn to the moral context of the debate, to which the committee referred. I agree with the committee's recommendation on page 15, which states:
	"The unanimous view of the Select Committee is that it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering".
	Like the committee, I do not accept that animals have rights. For reasons that are too complicated to go into in the time available today, rights should be ascribed to right-holders who have or have had or will have the capacity for rational deliberation and choice, or the capacity for moral agency. It is that that provides the basis for rights in the most coherent form in which we can think about them.
	While animals do not have rights, it makes good sense to say that they do have interests, which are of some moral salience. We can ascribe these interests to animals even though they cannot articulate them. They are rooted in the idea of the normal functioning of the animal. Anything which facilitates that normal functioning is in the animal's interests. Ideas about animal welfare, animal flourishing and animal interests—the subject of a fascinating debate between the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and one of the evidence-givers—are rooted in the idea of the normal functioning of an organism and the needs associated with that.
	Deliberate interference with normal functioning and the animals' interests is of moral concern. In our own case, we recognise that such interference that causes pain, fear and suffering impedes normal functioning and is of moral concern. If we recognise that animals have interests linked to normal functioning and we recognise that the inhibition of normal functioning in our own case is a matter of moral concern, it is also a matter of moral concern for animals. That is why I agree with the suggestion made to the committee, and noted in the report, that rather than thinking in terms of cost-benefit analysis, which puts a rather quantitative and overly scientific gloss on the issue, we should think about harm and benefit, which would be a little more transparent and open.
	The harm-benefit calculation would have to be based on judgment rather than the assumption that there is a clear scientific calculation to be made, for all the reasons given in the report about the difficulty of measuring the degree of suffering and the cognition of suffering in the case of animals. So the report gets it about right in its general view of the moral legitimacy of using animals in scientific experimentation.
	I wish to reflect briefly on my role serving on an ethical review committee. My experience was that, up to a point, it worked quite well. I was a lay chair, along with the certificate-holder in the institution, the registrar of the university—also a non-scientist and therefore a lay member. It is very important to have lay membership in order to lend greater legitimacy to the ethical review procedure mentioned by the committee. Further, they aid in serving as a step towards achieving a more general ownership of the whole process, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winston.
	However, we have to recognise some of the difficulties of recruiting lay members for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. There is a perception—how realistic it is, I am not in a position to judge—that such a role might be quite dodgy and dangerous to undertake. Certainly, in inviting me to take on the role, the vice-chancellor of my university thought that he was asking a great deal of me in those terms. That may be rather overdone, but nevertheless it may well be the case that some people will be reluctant to become involved. However, we need to take strong steps in that direction, and I was rather disappointed with the Government's response on this. It is part of a whole process of building public trust and public ownership.
	I turn to a small but nevertheless important point. One condition of opening up ethical review committees to lay members should be that scientists themselves have to become a little more user-friendly, as it were, in how they write up their research applications. Some of the applications we considered involving moderate to severe experiments on animals seemed to be completely unintelligible. Again, as a part of the aim of encouraging the public to become more involved and supportive, thus building greater confidence in the process, scientists themselves must bear some responsibility in ensuring that they communicate effectively what they are trying to do. They must explain why the work is necessary in language that most of us can understand.
	That is an important point, in particular in the context of the general role of the ethical review committee as reported on page 34. Drawing from the wording used in the Act, it refers to promoting,
	"the use of ethical analysis to increase awareness of animal welfare issues and develop initiatives leading to the widest possible application of the Three Rs".
	If this is seen as a very closed process within which one scientist simply talks to another, it will not work well. It must have a wider input, with more exoteric language being used rather than the current prevalence of esoteric language.
	Given the role that the ethical review committee is supposed to play in an institution in formulating best practice and giving that institution some confidence in the procedures, the issue again arises of the perception of the security situation. Certainly at the university I worked in at the time, there was a great reluctance to publicise even the existence of the ethical review committee, never mind promoting its reports, because it was thought that that might give some kind of entree to terrorists bent on tracking down scientists. Again, that may be a real and genuine concern and I do not seek to underestimate it. It reflects the size of the problem that we have to overcome.
	I agree that, as a part of the solution, it would be a good idea to have anonymised research project applications written up intelligibly and then, after they have been approved and funded, publicised. However, that raises further security concerns, although I do not know whether the anxiety is real. Given the obsessional nature of many animal rights people, it is perfectly feasible to conclude that, if a certain piece of research is concentrated in only one or two university departments, it may be possible for someone accessing a computer to watch over time the pattern of publications from those institutions and then to make a pretty good guess at who is the author. If they so wished, terrorists could then try to track that person down. There are some dangers that would not necessarily be overcome by anonymity; we need to think about them carefully.
	I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble friend Lord Winston in their argument for delegating to ethical review committees the responsibility for making minor changes to licences. Having chaired such a committee, I see absolutely no reason why they should not have the competence and integrity to do so. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Winston is absolutely right in his remarks about the problems of delay. We encountered very lengthy delays in securing licences even for pretty standard procedures.
	Finally, speaking as someone whose wife has had 10 years of her life blighted by surgical incompetence, I would very much approve of the idea of doing everything to increase the competence of surgeons. If that involves practising on animals, then I think that is a jolly good thing.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I share in the tributes paid to our chairman, Lord Smith of Clifton. He opened the debate with a fine speech that was entirely consistent with the qualities he demonstrated during our long hours together. I have enjoyed enormously being a member of the committee. I share, too, his opinions of the Government's response to our report; "patronising and complacent" are the words that I would use. The response was very disappointing.
	One day we will have a Minister in the Home Office with responsibility for this corner who has an interest in the subject and sufficient expertise and who stays in office long enough to do something about it. This area is a typical administrative backwater, one given to the Minister with the least prestige in the department who, if they are lucky, find themselves bumped on in the next reshuffle. So these matters are never addressed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is himself an excellent example of how one can put a skilful Minister in the Lords, leave them in the same job for a number of years and watch them achieve things that are not possible through the rotating ministerial responsibilities that occur when a Commons Minister is attached to such areas. I hope that, one day, we will have a Home Office Minister in this House with responsibility for this area. I hope, too, that he remains for long enough, so that we can tackle the underlying issues. I say that because it is the lack of commitment and lack of interest on the part of the Government which shines through their responses.
	I want to concentrate on the subject of information. As has been admitted, some of the procedures which are carried out on animals are extremely cruel. One of the product licences that we were allowed to read—and goodness, we had to fight hard to be shown any—was classified as "moderate", "gentle" or some other word which would have appeared in the statistics as procedures involving a few animals doing not very much. But within that classification was a percentage of animals that suffered in ways that just made my heart stop. We were doing things to those animals which were unbelievably cruel—and we were doing them for our own good.
	These things are being done in our name. I support them being done—I believe that it is reasonable to use animals in this way to alleviate human suffering—but we ought to be told what is being done. We ought to give our permission, in an understanding way, for these things to be done to animals for the benefit of ourselves—because they are certainly not being done for the benefit of animals.
	At the moment, the way in which we present statistics is dishonest, and the way in which we withhold information from the public of what is being done is one of the principal causes of animal terrorism. We do not allow any legitimate democratic discussion of these matters and we should not be surprised when that causes ulcers to erupt on the body politic—although I share in the deprecation of what the animal terrorists get up to, which is entirely unreasonable. If they were reasonable in their activities they would direct themselves at the Home Office and leave the good scientists and commercial businesses alone. We would then perhaps get a response from the Government in regard to the difficulties they cause.
	I am very keen that we should make decent progress on some of the recommendations we have made, particularly in regard to the forum which would allow the many rational anti-vivisectionists and the organisations they represent to debate the fundamental science that lies at the heart of some of the things we are doing.
	It is quite clear to me from visiting laboratories that some of the practices we follow exist only because they have always been there. We saw a large number of rats living in bad cages with absolutely nothing to do. Why? Because that is the way it has always been done. If you give the rats something to chew, something to amuse themselves with, it makes them happier, healthier rats. That means that the results of the experiments will be different. So we keep the rats in conditions which are fundamentally cruel and unpleasant because no individual experimenter can afford the costs of changing the parameters of the experiment they are carrying out. They want to line up with the experiments which have been carried out before, and if they make their rats happier they will get different results to which no one will pay attention.
	The core of doing something about that situation is for the Government to take an enthusiastic and committed line with the OECD and the other international organisations which set the standards and to say, "No, we want these experiments carried out on rats which are as happy and as fulfilled as possible". It will take money, time and commitment—but the commitment required is of the Government. It cannot be done by individual researchers who, in order to make a success of what they are doing, of the grant money they have been given and of their careers, have to follow the patterns which have already been set. That needs to be challenged and discussed in a forum with a strong scientific basis.
	The noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that we are trying out a number of genes in animals. So we are—we will learn what these genes do in mice—but genes are not stable in what they do between one species and another. It has been a long time—about 40 million years—since our lines separated from mice. Genes learn to do different things in that amount of time. The same gene can have different functions in different animals however similar they may seem. We have to allow for the fact that sometimes we develop animal models which are not very good—or appear to be not very good—models of human disease, although often it is argued that they are and it becomes scientific practice to follow them, at great cost to animals.
	The practice that causes me greatest distress is giving the symptoms of Parkinson's disease to monkeys. I cannot see that it is producing anything of use in the treatment of the human disease but, because it is the only model there, it is pursued at great length. So there must be a forum in which that kind of practice can be challenged; in which the scientists can be asked—

Lord Winston: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that one of the most important advances made in stem cell biology recently has been the use of exactly that model to demonstrate the cure of Parkinson's disease in a genetically modified rodent?

Lord Lucas: My Lords, we must be talking about a different model. I was referring to chemically induced Parkinsonism in monkeys, which visibly causes a lot of suffering.
	These practices must be challengeable. If there is doubt, we must have a forum in which these issues can be challenged. That is one of our most important recommendations. There should be a way in which these matters can be properly debated, at a scientific level, between those who oppose particular lines of scientific research and those who advocate them in order that we may ultimately arrive at a common view. We know from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that evidence-based medicine is doing a great deal of good for the National Health Service. We need to have evidence-based animal experimentation and the same kind of challenge in what we are doing.
	One of the most extraordinary things that I noticed as a member of the committee is how little evidence there is that animal experimentation—particularly animal testing for toxicological purposes—really works. Very little research has been carried out. It took me a long time to get any information from the ministry as to what had been done. Ultimately, there was only one research paper with that focus, which had gathered information of all the testing carried out on pharmacological compounds and had started to look at which ones worked and which ones did not and at what were the deficiencies.
	It becomes a matter almost of ritual that we are sacrificing animals because in some way it allows us to be comfortable that something is safer. Because we know it does not cause cancer in rats, we believe that it is safe in us; that because these animals have died in our name we are therefore safe. But we have not been doing the basic science; we have not been watching what we have been doing; we have not been gathering evidence to show that this, that or the other animal test is effective.
	It is quite clear that many tests are effective—we have gone a long way down the road with animal tests—but we should be challenging what is being done. We are causing a great deal of cruelty in order to do us good and it is a moral imperative on us that we should make sure that the cruelty we are causing is in a good cause and that it is doing us good.
	The development rate of new chemical compounds in the drug industry is slowing down—it is becoming slower and slower. It takes longer and longer to produce new effective compounds and it is becoming more and more expensive. We are piling on bureaucracy and safety tests. The whole business of creating new compounds is becoming more difficult—and throughout that process there is a lack of evidence that what we are doing is effective.
	The noble Lord, Lord Winston, drew attention to the slowness of getting approvals for projects and, particularly, for amendments to projects. We found no evidence that that saves an iota of animal suffering. We saw no evidence that it improves the science. It is merely a sclerosis in the system that has been allowed to develop because of a belief that a long and detailed process must be doing good. We need to concentrate on the evidence and make sure that everything we are doing with animals and science is effective. If we do that, we can hold our heads high and say that the cruelty we are inflicting on animals is justified.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Not only did it get to the very heart of the matter that we are discussing today, but it also gave me some relief in feeling that I would not be a lone voice in this debate. I may go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would, but if I do it is because I am speaking not only for myself but on behalf of the Green Party, to which I belong.
	Before I move to criticise the report of the Select Committee, I pay tribute to the absolutely admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in presenting the report. I also pay tribute to the public-spiritedness of the people who took part in the Select Committee, even though I believe that their report and the Government's reply are severely flawed, not to say loaded.
	Let me say, first, where my party and I come from. I myself am a carnivore; therefore, I cannot take the extreme position taken by some people, such as C.S. Lewis, that it is wrong for us to use animals as a means to our own ends. Nevertheless, I feel—and this is something to which most people pay lip service, at any rate—that in dealing with all animals who are under our control, including farm animals, about which I have been involved in legislation for a period of time, we owe them a duty to impose on them the absolute minimum of suffering, and then only for truly, undeniably important ends.
	I differ from the Green Party's policy on animal rights just as I differ from most people not only in thinking that there are such things as animal rights, but also in thinking that there are human rights.
	The Green Party says that the prevailing assumption that animals can be used for any purpose that benefits humankind is not acceptable in a green society. I would say that it is not acceptable in a human society, either.
	While I commend the emphasis on the three Rs in the report, I deplore the Select Committee's failure to consider some of the rather more complex and detailed parts of the subject such as research conducted for household products, war-related psychological experiments and experiments on primates, which I particularly oppose. It certainly looks as though the membership of the committee and the selection of witnesses were skewed in favour of those who already accepted that a large degree of animal testing is necessary, as opposed to the large proportion of the population which, however ill thought out their views, do not.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, experiments on animals are notoriously fallible when it comes to predicting for humans. The only really useful experiments are those which we carry out on ourselves. Here I pay tribute to those humans—doctors, scientists and others—who have pursued this path, often at great personal risk.
	It is time to pass from the failings of the Select Committee to the failings of the Government. You might expect that I would therefore speak for as long again, but I will not because I think that noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and most others, have made so many good points about the inadequacy of the Government's response that it would be pointless for me to repeat them.
	The committee called for improvements in transparency and for investment in non-animal methods. But the Government have not, it appears, agreed to any one single new initiative in this field.
	I, too, say no to animal terrorists and yes to a reasonable rate of change in reducing animal experimentation until we get to the point where we do not have to have any of it. My colleague, Dr Caroline Lucas, a Member of the European Parliament, said yesterday that last year there were 2.7 million more animal experiments. That is 2.7 million more examples of our inhumanity to other species. I look forward to a society in which there will be virtually none or absolutely none.
	I hope that both the noble Lords who have been involved in the Select Committee and, more particularly, the Government, will pay attention to the great feeling that exists about this in the country, and do something about it.

Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate our report and the Government's response, and also to add my thanks to our excellent chairman, our gifted Clerk, our special adviser, and to say how much I enjoyed working with the members of the committee.
	I shall now say a few words to endorse the recommendation that a centre to promote the three Rs should be set up. Included in the appendices to the report are two other items on the subject—the report of the working group on a centre as part of the conference held by the committee on 21st May 2002 and the oral evidence given to the committee in Paris by Mr Koeter of the OECD.
	There is a misunderstanding in the Government's response, which my noble friend Lord Soulsby mentioned. Paragraph 2 of the Government's introduction says:
	"We also agree that the case put forward by the Select Committee for a United Kingdom centre for the 3Rs focused largely, but not exclusively, on toxicity testing, as a complement to other initiatives in this area, is worth exploring further".
	However, Recommendation 24, which has already been quoted twice in this debate, states:
	"A Centre for the Three Rs should be set up, consisting of a small, administrative hub which co-ordinates research units embedded in existing centres of scientific excellence".
	Although research into alternatives to toxicity testing is very important, implementing the three Rs in fundamental research is in greater need of further work and government backing.
	Since the report was published, there have been a number and variety of full and interesting comments. These have come from the Boyd Group, the MRC, FRAME, the RSPCA and many others. It has been said that the committee's recommendations on the subject of a centre were too sketchy. However, as they have stimulated such a lot of comments and suggestions, perhaps it is a good thing that the report was not too prescriptive.
	It is accepted that, broadly speaking, animals used in scientific experiments fall into roughly two categories—testing for toxicity and basic medical research. Industry-driven testing for toxicity avoids some of the information transfer problems experienced by those undertaking blue-sky research. Regulatory testing will frequently use standardised tests which are internationally recognised and accepted. Cost is an important factor, as using animals is expensive, and any new method which reduces the number of animals involved will have considerable appeal.
	However, as many more animals are used in biomedical research than for regulatory testing, alternatives are much harder to develop. Because of the very nature of academic research, despite the rigorous demands of the three-part licensing system it is not always possible to predict where the research will lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, emphasised when making a different point. As seeking improvements in the three Rs is not always top of the agenda, in order to help busy scientists in the search for alternatives it is important that useful and relevant knowledge, data and support are available to them.
	It is generally agreed that work on alternatives must be embedded in existing research establishments. The hub and spoke model for a centre has been widely supported. What kind of hub? Real or virtual? How real or how virtual? One suggested model would have a director, scientific officers, secretariat and an executive council. That would inevitably lead to authority and control and impose a layer of bureaucracy on scientists already overburdened with process. It would need unrealistic levels of funding and does not appeal as a practical starting point. That is an elaborate model; there could be much simpler versions.
	It is possible that the model most likely to succeed, anyway to start with, would be an almost virtual hub—almost because it would need a small secretariat to research and collate data and an expert committee which would meet occasionally. Its main purpose would be to create and maintain a database which would be designed to be attractive and useful to the scientific community in general, but particularly to those carrying out fundamental research, where there is the greatest need. It is also important that there should be a forum where scientists could meet at seminars, conferences and so on, and that is something the centre could organise.
	The spokes would be embedded in research institutions. Every major institution should have a scientist working alongside those using animals who would be dedicated to pursuing the three Rs. Although scientists tend to use traditional methods, they recognise the advantages of maximising the use of each animal and thereby reducing numbers. Animals do not produce perfect results and experiments will be developed which will be more reliable. To raise the profile of alternatives it would be necessary for senior and prestigious scientists to be taking a lead in championing the research. That could be the nucleus of a centre based on the hub and spoke model that could grow into something more substantial.
	A vast amount of research will continue to be carried out by universities, research institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and other establishments. A centre for the three Rs would provide a facility that will enable scientists to take the message on board and provide them with a remit to promote alternatives.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, it was a privilege to sit on the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, under the wise and calming chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I apologise for my late arrival during his opening speech. Our thanks, too, go to the Clerk and our special adviser, Professor Reiss.
	I am a physical scientist with no involvement in animal experiments. However, I declare an interest as a professor in University College, London, where there is of course animal experimentation. We were all struck by the great care and scientific thoroughness exercised by all those involved in experimenting with animals for scientific and medicinal purposes. As I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, would acknowledge, no one undertakes such experiments without a great deal of thought and concern.
	I supported wholeheartedly the committee's first recommendation, that,
	"it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals",
	appropriately and in a regulated structure.
	Increasingly, as science advances and with it, one hopes, mutual understanding of ethical beliefs of different societies and groups around the world, humans everywhere accept the need to consider how we share the natural world with animals and plants. Of course, the natural world is complex and savage. Species defend their own interests, and humans are no exception. But perhaps we are special in recognising how similar we are in essence to animals at the level of genes, cells, organs, limbs and even brains. That poses a moral dilemma—that the more similar an animal species is to humans, the better it is as a substitute for humans for experimentation. Pragmatic but fine decisions have to be made and regulated. Consequently, lower order animals are used much more than the higher order animals closer to humans—but sometimes that is necessary.
	It was remarkable to see that, in surgical operations conducted on monkeys, as a monkey came round after an operation, one of its carers was holding its hand. One knows the feeling oneself after general anaesthesia. That is just one example of how the scientific community feels about its moral duties and does something about them. The inspectorate can certainly take some credit, but more because of its advisory visits than its bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made the point strongly about the moral involvement of his colleagues.
	Given that our fundamental recommendation is broadly supported by society as a whole and by Parliament, it is incumbent on government and their agencies to ensure that those who work directly or indirectly with animals for science and medicine are publicly approved and protected against threats of violence or other intimidation. That issue was addressed on page 45 of our report, in a rather small piece of text, where we note that the Government must not only continue to speak up on behalf of the individuals and organisations involved in this work but must be much more energetic than hitherto in ensuring that individuals can go about their normal lives without the frightening abuse and even physical violence.
	One notes that in Britain, the police seem to require only that people making threats and nuisance move away a few hundred yards. We learned that industry staff in the United States feel much safer because such people are banned for many years from even entering the county where those activities are going on. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made some useful suggestions.
	Similar ambivalence about providing robust support to those engaged in animal work is shown by the City of London, who have buckled under the pressure of animal rights protesters. We should not be surprised by their pusillanimous attitudes; Samuel Johnson commented in the 18th century on the,
	"cowardice of a commercial place",
	in his diary following the Gordon riots in 1780.
	Fortunately, today, the Government have used their financial resources to support companies, and we should acknowledge and be grateful for the extraordinary personal efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the Science Minister, in that respect. Will he confirm that the policy will continue? Will the Financial Services Authority, or whoever is responsible for the City, be used to stiffen the City's backbone on those and other improper pressures, as they are applied?
	An innovative and controversial element of the report was the recommendation that the Government and scientific community should devote more resources to seeking methods that can replace or reduce the numbers of animals used in experiments. We learned from witnesses that industry, universities and societies are very interested in using such methods, when they are effective, because of the obvious welfare benefits and because they can reduce costs. That is not a new idea, but the momentum for substitution is growing and will have huge repercussions for research, education and industry.
	In the UK, pioneering research in which computer modelling is used to study the effect of drugs on the body is going on. As our report explains, there are two aspects: one is statistical, in which data from animal experiments are analysed and extrapolated to other situations. That would ensure the most effective use of the experiments and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, argued, could be used to challenge standard techniques that may not be effective. The other aspect is based on mathematical representation of certain processes and organs of the body and how they respond to drugs or other influences.
	We learned of the exciting scientific and commercial developments of Professor Noble at Oxford. That approach is growing. However, it must be said that many biologists, some of whom I spoke to yesterday at the Royal College of Physicians, are very sceptical, because it is only through animal experiments that one can understand interactions in a full body. Such biologists appear to believe that any resources devoted specially to the three Rs will detract from scientific and medical research.
	I recall the 1960s, when we saw such negativism about the use of computers. It was interesting, in the early 1960s, when Farnborough and the National Physical Laboratory were considering the use of computers for the design of aeroplanes. Because they were so good at an older technology of theoretical aerodynamics and wind tunnels, they were quite sceptical. The developments in fact took place elsewhere—fortunately, still in the UK, at Imperial College, Swansea, Cranfield and so on. Perhaps surprisingly, those revolutionary efforts were supported by the government through the research councils. We need a similar dual approach today.
	The other methods involve laboratory-based experiments with some small samples of living matter. In the United States, the committee visited a small company developing in vitro methods to substitute certain animal experiments. The company is working towards making those methods also available for schools and universities, where animals and other dissection experiments are no longer available.
	The committee concluded that developing such alternative techniques for widespread use, both in vitro and via computer modelling, required some focused effort. As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and others have explained, the pace of change is not going to be rapid if we rely solely on serendipitous developments by specialists, whose whole career and knowledge of experimental techniques is based on current methods. That opinion was strongly supported by the committee and by the report published in June 2003 of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, whose biologist chairman, Sir Tom Blundell, used to be chief executive of the Biological Research Council. It was also supported by working scientists and doctors I have met as well as by the House of Commons Early-Day Motion and, as one might expect, by several animal welfare societies.
	Therefore, I hope the Minister will take back to the Home Office and other government departments the general feeling of disappointment about the Government's response to Recommendation 6. I note that the Medical Research Council essentially supports this Government's lukewarm response on this recommendation. There seems to be little recognition by the Government and by the Medical Research Council of the wider economic, educational and, dare one say, political advantages of increasing resources for the three Rs and of having some centre or focus to drive them forward. Such a centre would ensure that the developments were widely understood and the potential benefits properly emphasised and explained. I hope that the Department for Education and Skills can be involved regarding the points that I have already mentioned.
	As the present and previous governments have bemoaned and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, wrote in a recent Parliamentary Monitor article, there have been all too many examples of scientific developments not being exploited. Will the Government ensure that the Medical Research Council and other government departments pursue those developments diligently and imaginatively? A ministerial reply in the other place indicated that there would be a response by the autumn. Will this House also be informed at the same time?
	I return to the fundamentals. Animal experiments are essential and the UK can learn from other countries. I refer in that regard to governments, doctors, pharmacists and perhaps even the health centre at the Palace of Westminster. Much more publicity is needed to explain this inescapable feature of modern medicine. As regards the broader areas I hope that we shall hear the Minister say how he might spread this message through the Central Office of Information.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for arriving slightly late for his opening speech. If the first half was as good as the second half, I am sure that I have missed something rather special. I am pretty certain, though, that the stop shack had switched off the traffic lights to make sure that I was late arriving here.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his excellent chairmanship. I also thank our musical Clerk. I and my fellow members of the committee were a happy band of brothers. I believe that we had a completely and utterly fascinating time.
	When I asked the head of the Rosslyn Institute how cloning worked, he started to say, "Lord Onslow, if I were to clone you", but before he could get any further, my noble friend Lord Smith said, "Do not let it even begin to cross your mind". That was not uttered sotto voce but in the manner extempore. After the quality of the work done by my colleagues, the Clerk and my noble friend—I use that word completely advisedly—Lord Smith, the reaction of the Government immediately reminds me of the two words "damp" and "squib". The only thing that slightly cheers me is the sight of my old housemate, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, sitting on the Front Bench opposite. At least I know that he knows what he is talking about. Earlier this week I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who was due to reply to this debate. She expressed blank terror at the thought of having to deal with this matter as well as the Criminal Justice Bill. I thank the Government for allotting the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who knows what a molecule is.
	On being appointed to the committee I was determined to be open-minded and to give the anti-vivisectionists a fair run for their money. After all the evidence that we have heard, I am completely sure that animals must continue to be used in the way that we are debating. I read a report published by the APC in June this year which further increased my certainty. But that does not mean that all in the experimental world is correct. The committee was made up of a group of people who could be said to be disparate. But at the end of our deliberations it was impossible to drive a fag paper between our views as expressed in the report. We went thorough it line by line, co-operatively and constructively. It was an object lesson in how these things should be done.
	I wish to comment on three aspects and three aspects only. First, I want to underline regulation, secondly, statistics—which I regret to say the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seems to have misunderstood—and, thirdly, genetic modification. They all interact. The regulations are always said to be the tightest in the scientific world. In paragraph 5.32, we state:
	"Bureaucracy in itself does not contribute to animal welfare".
	That is self-evident, but it does not appear that the Government have understood that. We pointed out that bureaucracy was not the best approach. The Government do not appear to see this obvious truth. That is reflected in the slightly self-satisfied tone of the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to our report.
	The time that it takes to approve projects is much longer than in any other country. The time taken even to get minor changes in a licence, such as reducing the number of rats used from 99 to 98, is like the death of Charles II—unconscionable. We were told of one certain case of it being cheaper to do an experiment in the United States rather than wait for the licence for the visiting scientist to be approved, so everyone involved in that experiment was flown from England to the United States. That is not satisfactory. We show how that can be rectified in paragraph 5.28 which states:
	"It is worth emphasising that the 1986 Act requires personal, institutional, and project licences. The UK is the only country to require an explicit cost/benefit assessment of every application to conduct animal research".
	I am afraid to say that the Government have not upheld that point of view.
	Paragraph 5.33 states:
	"We consider that the UK should strive not for the tightest regulation, but for the best regulation, properly enforced",
	to which the Government responded with the following reply:
	"The Government already strives for the most efficient and effective regulation. The responsibilities placed upon the Secretary of State by the 1986 Act impose stringent criteria that must be satisfied before licence authorities are granted".
	There is a general smugness running through the whole of the response which depresses one greatly. The Government's response to the recommendations in paragraphs 5.40 and 5.46 are again depressing. Paragraph 5.40 of the report states:
	"We recommend that urgent consideration should be given by the Home Office to the simplification of project licences, with the aim of reducing the length of a typical licence to 10 pages".
	The Government state in response:
	"It is in our view of little value to make comparisons with the licences of other countries, where the regulatory regimes are different. Nor is it particularly helpful to specify a maximum number of pages as a target for reducing licences".
	I ask, why not? Are we so smug that nothing can be improved?
	Paragraph 5.46 of the report states:
	"We recommend that visiting scientists and students in higher education should be allowed to carry out work under the licences of an established licence-holder, who would take responsibility for their actions and for the maintenance of animal welfare".
	The Government respond by stating:
	"It need not cause significant delay, as the licence application can be processed before the person arrives in the UK and the licence granted as soon as the training certificate is received".
	We have heard much evidence that that is not the case.
	Secondly, I turn to statistics. What is the phrase, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? It is a cliche. However, it has a grain of truth in it. The statistics on animals used are misleading, as the numbers contain all the mice and rats bred for genetic modification, a large proportion of which will not be used. Under French, European and American law, they are not covered by the legislation.
	That being the case, the number of animals used is falling. The categories of "mild", "moderate" and "substantial" are misleading. The RSPCA states on the matter that,
	"the information contained in the statistics appears to be detailed but is actually of limited use".
	At paragraph 9.34, we state that,
	"we consider that the current system of assessing pain and suffering is already highly misleading".
	Again, the reaction of Her Majesty's Government veered towards the self-satisfied.
	Statistically distorting though genetic modification may be, the progress that can be achieved through the science is mind-blowing. Introduce the human gene into a mouse so that it can get human cancers or diseases such as Alzheimer's, and drugs can be tested on a creature where the time of progression can be concertinaed by years. The APC appendix states:
	"The production by animals of genetically modified proteins to treat devastating human diseases has already been enormously beneficial (e.g. insulin, growth hormone). Large quantities of high quality hormones which are not contaminated (e.g. with prions, HIV) can be produced in this way. This is likely to provide safe treatments for many other human diseases in the near future. All will have to be tested on animals for their efficacy and safety".
	It goes on to suggest:
	"The use of antitrypsin, which is being extracted from the milk of a herd of transgenic sheep, as a possible treatment for cystic fibrosis and other lung disease. This is in the final stages of clinical trials".
	That shows the immense excitement that there is. Even as someone who is scientifically pretty ignorant, I can be excited by that because it shows that the science is so important.
	We must do nothing to inhibit the experiments, for two reasons. The first is the benefit of mankind, and the second is not to fetter the achievements of British science which, although I understand little of its intricacies, I came to admire enormously during my time on the Select Committee.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and his colleagues on their report on animals in scientific procedures. I am a layman, but I found the report to be a fascinating inquiry into issues that are both significant and sensitive. If I may say so without being patronising in any way, I found the report as clear as it is thorough as it is direct. The subject is one about which the general public have become progressively more concerned and interested in recent years. It also inspires many diametrically opposed opinions, some of which have been aired during the debate, so it is appropriate that the report should be wide-ranging and yet meticulous in its analysis and conclusions.
	By contrast, I am afraid that I found the tone of the Government's reply to the report disappointing. I am aware that many noble Lords have used harsher words than that about it. I found it particularly disappointing given the Labour Party's great enthusiasm for the topic when in opposition. The Labour policy document entitled New Labour, New Britain, New Life for Animals, published before the 1997 general election stated:
	"Labour will insist on the highest standards of welfare for animals in the laboratory, and ensure that they are used only when essential for medical and other scientific purposes. We will support a Royal Commission to review the effectiveness and justification of animal experiments and to examine alternatives".
	No royal commission has yet been set up, so the general public is entitled to be a tad cynical about the reality of the Government's commitment. Such cynicism is likely to be reinforced by the varying tone of the Government's reply to the Select Committee. It commences with warm endorsement in the introduction, but adopts a much more cautious reaction to the individual recommendations.
	At the outset, I should make it clear that on these Benches we share the committee's view that some testing of animals in scientific procedures is necessary. It may be unpleasant, but it is regrettably unavoidable. Views in support of that were powerfully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Jane Asher recently brought attention to the debate in a speech at a medical conference, published in the Daily Telegraph on 9th October, where she asked:
	"Can you really imagine a mother being shown her child in extreme pain and distress, for example, and being told that the death of a few mice and rats would end it, and her hesitating for one second?".
	I do not for a moment suggest that the case for animal testing is as black and white and as simple as that quotation suggests, but it encapsulates a view which makes it hard to dismiss the importance of effective regulated animal testing. The importance of the effectiveness was also underlined by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
	In my view, the Select Committee has performed a very valuable service in drawing attention to the regulatory balance to be struck, the difficulties in so doing and, in particular, the challenges posed because of the rapid rate of technological advance and the shift in public opinion about the acceptability of animal testing.
	An example from a parallel field may help to underline my point. In a previous incarnation, I was a member of one of the City's regulatory bodies. I am slightly nervous about admitting that in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, about the City, but I shall proceed. Every time that anything went wrong in the City there would be a cry for some new regulation. The easy option was to introduce it. However, there is no God-given reason why financial services have to stay in the City of London. Raise the regulatory barrier too high and slowly, even imperceptibly at first, the business will move to centres which are seen to have a more appropriate regulatory touch.
	That is equally not an argument for a free-for-all—quite the reverse. A financial market rocked by frequent scandals will lose business for the converse reason—that it is not a good place for individual firms to be associated with. That seems to be a key point in the Select Committee's report, with its emphasis on the "best regulation" rather than the "tightest". Many noble Lords have commented on the level of bureaucracy, which is an issue to be addressed in the context of best regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and my noble friend Lord Onslow all spoke about that.
	Another important achievement of the Select Committee's report was to address what has been labelled as the crisis of trust. Chapter 9 of the report explains that, in 2002, the Science and Technology Committee of this House published Science and Society, a report on the relationship between scientists and the public. It suggested that the crisis of trust was particularly apparent in the debate about the use of animals in scientific procedures. Some of the reasons for that crisis have a wide application over a variety of scientific fields: people are generally more questioning of authority; some government departments and institutions still operate too much under a culture of secrecy; and some scientific issues have in the past been framed so as to exclude consideration of moral, social and ethical issues.
	That all contributes to creating a public suspicion of science and scientists. The example of Hillgrove Farm illustrates how, in that climate of secrecy and suspicion, matters can get out of hand. It was an appropriately licensed facility that bred cats for the purpose of experimentation. There was a strong and very active campaign against the farm from critics over a long period, eventually resulting in its closure. Despite implications, no experiments were actually carried out on the cats at Hillgrove Farm. The show of protest required a constant police presence around the farm during its last two years costing an estimated £3 million. Protestors saw its closure as a milestone victory.
	However, the RSPCA, not an organisation which can be considered a pushover when it comes to animal welfare, took a different view, as can be seen from a detail of its briefing released at the time of the closure. It reads:
	"There will still be a demand for laboratory cats and the RSPCA is concerned that more cats will now be imported from other countries where we have no control over how they are bred. More research using cats may also be conducted overseas where conditions in laboratories may not meet those required in the UK".
	How could costly and fundamentally unhelpful events like that be avoided, or at least their frequency reduced? As many noble Lords have pointed out, there surely can be no doubt that better communication with the public would have benefited all parties, not least the Government. Establishing and developing a means of communication must be a major responsibility of the Government. Most members of the general public do not approve of the harder, more aggressive line taken by, for example, the Huntingdon Life Sciences activists, but the disturbing stories about animal experimentation, which have circulated over the years, have none the less caused certain public concerns. The only answer must be to be open and tell the truth. Despite a supportive introduction, the Government do not seem to be yet ready to respond sufficiently vigorously to the Select Committee's specific recommendations. In that, I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and many other noble Lords.
	For example, the Select Committee devoted considerable attention to public information. Indeed, the whole of Chapter 9 was devoted to it. However, the Government's response to Recommendations 28, 29, 30 and 31 and the contents of paragraph 9.5 could best be described as lukewarm. Above all, they did not appear to show much urgency, preferring instead to fall back on further consultation.
	Another way in which the committee helpfully suggested that public concern could be dispelled was through greater lay involvement. Recommendation 23 proposes that an external lay member should be required as part of each ethical review process.
	ERP provides independent advice to the certificate holder on standards of animal care, advises on ethical issues and promotes awareness. There is no point in the process at which lay involvement could be more effective, yet the Government apparently do not consider it to be practical or reasonable to make the involvement of a lay person mandatory on the ERP. However, a lay role in bringing an additional perspective to the process is extremely important. Paragraph 6.18 of the report states:
	"Lay members, as outsiders to the scientific community, can ask fundamental questions about justification which scientists might pass over as being seemingly too obvious to need justification. They can represent ethical viewpoints which those who are immersed in science might not normally consider. Lay membership allows a form of public scrutiny which should contribute to greater openness and a more rounded assessment of animal research".
	Surely such a proposal runs with the grain of the Government's general agreement with the Select Committee on creating a more open and transparent debate on the use of animals in scientific procedures. Some establishments might find it difficult, as the Government claim, to identify and recruit lay members, but that can by no means be an adequate excuse.
	The Government reacted similarly to paragraph 5.18, which proposes the inclusion of "lay visitors" on the visits by the inspectorate to the designated establishments. It is hard to see how the Government can be seriously concerned about issues of security and bio-security if the inspectorate is to be accompanied by a named animal care and welfare officer or a lay member from the ERP. Surely that will both encourage best practice in animal care and promote public confidence in the system.
	That would be similarly true of Recommendation 28, concerning the repeal of Section 24—the confidentiality clause—of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government's response is that they recognise,
	"that there remains a significant level of concern in the scientific community about the implications of repealing Section 24"
	and that it might jeopardise the safety of individual scientists. They conclude merely that they will further consult the scientific community.
	The Government's reaction suggests that the recommendation is pushing for the disclosure of the identities of all involved in any experimentation, but, as I read it, that is not the case. The recommendation's wording runs,
	"specific justification should then be made for each class of information that needs to be kept confidential, such as the identity of researchers and matters of commercial confidentiality and intellectual property".
	The recommendation appears to promote clarity and transparency. If identities have to be hidden, which we understand must happen from time to time, an explanation why identities cannot be disclosed will give the public confidence that it is a truly open relationship.
	Recommendation 24 was spoken to powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and my noble friends Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and Lady Eccles of Moulton. It proposes setting up a centre for the three Rs, comprising a small administrative hub to co-ordinate research units embedded in existing centres of scientific excellence.
	I agree with my noble friends that the Government's response to this is typical of many of their responses. While they "broadly" accept the gist of the recommendation, their preference is clearly for an exclusively toxicology-based centre as they are prepared only to "consult further" on the Select Committee's proposal of an all-embracing centre.
	As the RSPCA pointed out in its briefing, only about 17 per cent of animal procedures are classified as involved in toxicology. It expands:
	"It is difficult to reconcile the response to this recommendation with the earlier Government statement that they see progress with the Three Rs to be the responsibility of the entire biomedical community, and believe that the development of the Three Rs strategies should be embedded in mainstream biomedical research rather than separated from it".
	If that is truly the Government's outlook on the subject, why not accept the Select Committee's recommendation to establish a centre for the three Rs?
	The RSPCA further observed that the Government claim two centres already exist; the MRC Centre for Best Practice in Animal Research (CBPAR) and the Inter-Departmental Data Sharing Group (now IDG3Rs). But the RSPCA points out that neither of the organisations has yet achieved any track record in realising alternative methods,
	"nor is sufficiently broad-based to fulfil the necessary functions".
	The Research Animals Department of the RSPCA has written that the CBPAR's remit concentrates mainly on raising standards of animal husbandry through reduction and refinement. However, it does not focus on replacement, one of the integral three Rs and, as far as the RSPCA can make out, its membership consists of only four people.
	The Inter-Departmental Data Sharing Group was initially set up for safety testing; evaluating the test data of various new medicines and chemicals. It was renamed the Inter-Departmental Group on the Three Rs on 25th February 2003 so as better to reflect its functions, which are, according to a Home Office circular:
	"to improve the application of the Three Rs and promote research into alternatives, reducing the need for toxicity testing through better sharing of data and encouraging the validation and acceptance of alternatives".
	But since the promotion of that circular, and since the change of name, little has been heard from IDG3Rs. Contrary to the Government's assertions, it hardly has a high public profile. I can find no website and little to no information available elsewhere. Membership of the IDG3Rs was, when last revealed, around 12 people.
	All that information suggests that there has simply been a cosmetic change rather than a fundamental one. So the Government's claim that the CBPAR and the IDG3Rs provide sufficient development of the three Rs is clearly arguable. Backing focused development of the three Rs is a policy on which all parties can agree. On the other hand, trying to co-ordinate this development among numerous disparate factions with varying interests and commitments may well produce little of value.
	I conclude where I began by saying that I consider this to be a valuable and meaty report. The Government could and should have made better use of it. No one underestimates the fine judgments that need to be made on a number of issues: on the right level of regulation; on the right level of public knowledge; and on the right level of lay involvement. And these fine judgments have to be made against the background of groups holding very different views.
	The Select Committee is to be congratulated on a brave attempt to strike these balances. It remains to be seen whether the Government will be brave enough to build on that work. I look forward to hearing their response.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and members of the Select Committee for their excellent report. The subject of animal experimentation raises many sensitive and difficult issues, and the Select Committee heard many sincerely held and diverse views expressed in the evidence it received.
	Faced with that diversity of view, the Select Committee produced an extremely well-informed, interesting and important report containing many helpful suggestions. It was right in taking a tough-minded view about the need for animal experimentation—a clear view that we needed to continue to improve the system of control—and at the same time rightly calling for more information in terms of public debate.
	First, I shall deal with what I consider to be three general points made in the debate—two by the noble Lord, Lord Clifton, and one by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Our government response did not come simply from the Home Office; it came from all the government departments involved. The task was considerable, involving the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence. That may account for the fact that it took rather a long time to issue it.
	Secondly, I do not consider our approach to this matter to have been at all negative. We believe that most of the recommendations are being taken forward. However, they are complicated and, therefore, they are not being taken forward as fast as I would like. But I believe that all the important ones are being taken forward and that the complex issues are being dealt with.
	In that connection, perhaps I may say that the question of a centre for the three Rs is very complicated. I shall come to that in a moment. However, I do not believe that we should fall into making the mistake, which is common in these situations, of saying, "You have a problem. The solution to it is to set up a centre". We should not do that without examining what the centre should do and what the effect would be, and why there is a difference between general scientific research and toxicity. In this connection, that is an important point.
	Thirdly, I turn to the question of animal terrorism. I do not believe that it was central to the report but it provided a context for it. I totally agree with the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Hunt, that it is intolerable in our society that people who carry out such experiments should be subjected to the level of harassment and violence that they have experienced. We are dealing with part of that problem in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Having been away for the past week, I do not know whether that section of the Bill has been dealt with, but we are taking forward new legislation and other legislation has previously been introduced in that respect.
	I am not convinced that it is right to bring forward new legislation specifically on this issue. Most of the activities undertaken are covered, if inadequately, by current legislation, and I believe that our first line should be to improve that legislation. However, if necessary, we shall have to deal with it. I say clearly that I do not believe the Government are at all satisfied with the level of protection that we can give to people in that situation and certainly, in the future, we must do better.
	I return to the subject of the report. It recognises that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is a complex piece of legislation, making provision for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes and balancing that against the legitimate needs of science and industry.
	In that context, the cost-benefit analysis is fundamental to that legislation. We cannot have a situation in which, on the one hand, we pass legislation which has a very specific approach to this issue and, on the other, say that somehow we do not have to obey those considerations. Cost benefit is fundamental to this legislation. That is the way that it is done and we must operate within the context of what this country has passed as legislation.
	I turn to the substance of the Select Committee's report. The Government share the Select Committee's view that it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals in scientific research but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering. We believe the same view is held by the great majority of people in the United Kingdom.
	The Government also note, and endorse, the Select Committee's finding that there is a continuing need for animal experiments both in applied research and in research aimed at extending knowledge. We agree that fundamental and applied scientific research is essential for progress. We note that, in the field of healthcare, research using animals has contributed to almost every medical advance in the past century. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the great value of the report is how clearly it sets out the arguments as to why animal experimentation is necessary. In addition, the 2.7 million experiments that he mentioned are the total number of experiments carried out in a year; they do not represent the increase in animal experimentation.
	I also believe that public opinion, which the noble Lord quoted, is very sensible and entirely right on this issue. Most people in this country accept the idea of animal experimentation but are very clear that it should not take place in any case where it is unnecessary or causes unnecessary suffering. I also believe that the whole issue of information and openness is important because, if people are asked what type of regulations they would like to see in relation to animal experimentation, they describe what they see as the ideal system, and that is the system that we already have in this country. Therefore, there is a huge job to be done in communicating what already exists so that people understand what is going on. Although the situation may change in the future, the development of all new drugs, and a number of medical and veterinary technologies, continues to depend on the carefully regulated and responsible use of animals for research.
	I turn to some of the major issues raised by the Select Committee. We welcome the committee's recognition of the progress that has been made since 1987 in reducing the number of animals used in scientific procedures and in establishing a "culture of care" in establishments licensed under the 1986 Act. In spite of the essential role that animal studies continue to play, significant progress has been made with the three Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction in the number of animals used, and their replacement, wherever possible—since the 1986 Act was implemented.
	The statistics show that, since 1987, the number of procedures using animals started each year has reduced by almost a quarter. Most of the credit for that should go to the scientific community. In the commercial sector, animal use has almost halved over the years, despite increased investment and activity.
	We accept, however, that those successes are no reason for complacency. Therefore, the Government welcome the opportunity provided by the Select Committee's report to reaffirm their commitment to the further development and fullest possible application of the three Rs. We also acknowledge that that commitment is shared by the research community, whose ideas and resources drive progress in these areas and with whom responsibility for advances in the three Rs must primarily lie.
	Having said that, we have agreed that the persuasive case put forward by the Select Committee for a United Kingdom centre for research into the three Rs should be taken forward and explored further. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised the question of what the centre should do.
	Perhaps I may explain why I believe there is a difference between general scientific research and toxicity testing. In the case of general scientific research, it seems to be clear that every kind of scientific experimentation has its own problems and issues. If one is dealing with a single-cell recording from the brain, that presents a different problem from dealing with drugs and other issues.
	Therefore, it is very difficult to carry out general work which, in the multitude of areas, takes the methodology forward. It is far better to try to encourage and incentivise the individual scientist who carries out those specialised procedures to develop them, to do them better and to find other ways of doing them rather than to try to implement general programmes. That is not true in relation to toxicity testing, where it may be possible for major programmes to take the science forward. That is why we are concerned to get right our ideas on what the centre should do before going ahead.
	That is, in fact, being taken forward by the inter- departmental Group on the three Rs, led by the Home Office and comprising officials from the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and other agencies.
	The work of the group has so far established that there is support for a body to act as a means better to publicise and co-ordinate what is already done by way of research into the three Rs. There is also agreement among the scientific community that each of the three Rs is important and that work on them should remain part of mainstream biomedical research rather than be separated from it.
	There is also support for an Internet portal to provide easy access to reference material and advice, and strong support for the Medical Research Council's Centre for Best Practice in Animal Research as a major new resource in relation to fundamental research. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, cast doubt on the value of the work of the Medical Research Council's Centre for Best Practice in Animal Research. It was set up only recently and has already acquired among scientists and others great respect for its work, which people regard as very important. The minutes of the interdepartmental group on the three Rs and information about its work are on the Home Office website.
	The responses we have had to this proposal are encouraging and will form the basis of the group's further consideration of the Select Committee's recommendation. However, I reiterate that there is no point in having the centre as a totem pole; it is what it does which will be important in taking forward this agenda.
	Many responses to this proposal have emphasised the need for a global rather than a purely national approach to research into three Rs. So, there are many practical issues which remain to be resolved, including how a UK centre would be managed and funded and its relationship with the European Centre for the Validation of Advanced Methods and other international bodies.
	The interdepartmental group will report back to Ministers on its findings in the early part of next year. The Government have also noted the Select Committee's view that the United Kingdom should aim to have the best regulation of animal procedures properly enforced rather than the tightest regulation. In our response we made clear that we already strive for the most efficient and effective regulation.
	However, the responsibilities placed upon Ministers by the 1986 Act impose stringent criteria that must be satisfied before licence authorities are granted. We believe that that is as it should be and is necessary in order to generate and maintain public confidence in the regulatory system and the degree of protection it affords to the animals concerned.
	We accept that the project licence application form should be as short and simple as possible. That is a real issue for applicants. But the form must provide the minimum information necessary for the inspectorate to conduct the assessments required and for Ministers to demonstrate that they have properly discharged their duties under the 1986 Act. That is clearly an interest of the regulated and the regulator alike.
	Previous efforts by government and representatives of the research community, including the industry-based Expert Group on Efficient Regulation (EGER), have shown that the production of a much shorter application form and licence that will meet existing regulatory needs is a difficult task. It is easy to point out that there is a problem here, but difficult to come up with solutions.
	On a number of occasions when I have spoken with both scientists and industrialists I have made it clear that if such a document could be produced I would personally take it forward and make certain that it was implemented. However, we are currently again considering this matter with the research community with a view to producing a revised application form which all concerned accept is as simple and short as it possibly can be.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that both the ABPI and the Research Defence Society took part in a working group, which was set up this year to look at simplification of the project licence. Indeed, it met recently with a Home Office Minister to discuss the way forward on this work. If the Select Committee has any more detailed thoughts on how this application form should be changed, we should be keen to hear them. This is a subject on which we want to make real progress. However, it is not one on which there are quick or easy answers and it would be wrong to build high expectations. But together the Government and the scientific community will redouble their efforts to find a workable solution. A joint project team will report back to Ministers on this matter in the early part of next year.
	I turn to the question of openness and the review of Section 24 of the 1986 Act. The Government share the view of the Select Committee that there is a need for more open and better informed debate about the use of animals in scientific procedures. Government departments, industry, the scientific community and funders of such research all have an important role in explaining their legitimate use.
	We also believe that more good quality information should be made available to the public explaining the scientific work that is done using animals and the reasons for it. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that we must move away from the idea of a public understanding of science to science in society and that, indeed, we must have a situation where the public take ownership of research. Also scientists need to tackle these ethical issues sooner rather than later and to be seen by the public to be doing so.
	Subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information, we are therefore pressing ahead with our plans to publish summaries of project licences on the Home Office website as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. Discussions with the scientific community have so far identified an encouraging degree of agreement on their content.
	However, strong concerns have been raised by some scientists that the requirement to produce licence summaries will increase the administrative burden on project licence applicants, something we are anxious to avoid unless it is offset by streamlining of the application form. That is another matter which has been taken forward by the joint project team considering the licence application form. However, the Government are determined to iron out the practicalities in consultation with the scientific community and to start publishing summaries in an agreed format next year.
	As to the future of Section 24 of the 1986 Act, the so-called "confidentiality clause", we are aware from our further consultation with the scientific community earlier this year that there remains a significant level of concern about the implications of repealing it as the Select Committee recommended. Section 24 has nothing whatsoever to do with what information is put into the public domain. It is solely concerned with the question of penalties for people who improperly put that information into the public domain.
	In a climate which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, graphically described as "animal terrorism", it is not clear to me that reducing penalties on civil servants and others who put into the public domain information which should not be divulged is an obvious sign to the scientific community that we take this question of animal terrorism very seriously. An announcement about the outcome of the Government's review of Section 24 will be made to Parliament in the next few weeks.
	I turn to some of the more specific issues raised by noble Lords which I have not yet covered. As regards the question of the project licence processing times, first, we have not made a great deal of progress but we have not gone back on this. The target concerns 85 per cent and 35 clock days. Compared to most other countries, certainly in Europe, that is not bad, if it can be done in seven weeks. The figure of 94 per cent probably was an old target. It was a target of such spectacular nonsense that we have, quite rightly, got rid of it. It was simply a target number of days which civil servants who issued the licences took between the time they received the information that the licence could be granted and sending out the licence. In view of the fact that we achieved 94 per cent, or whatever, three or four days, as one can imagine is neither here nor there. The question concerned the number of clock days between the licence application being received and an answer being given. That is what we now monitor. The performance is not as good as it should be but is quite a lot better than it was in the past.
	As a society we cannot have it both ways. We either have a complex piece of legislation which requires a cost-benefit analysis, which will take a certain amount of time, or we can have something which is much simpler and quicker but the legislation is on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
	As regards the staffing of the inspectorate, we said that we would raise that from 21—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, could the Minister expand a little more on the minor amendments to project licences, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred and which we were advised about frequently during our consultations?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I should have mentioned that point. When I considered this in detail, one of the biggest problems was the speed of the ethical review process, which was not part of the remit of the Home Office. As regards the question of minor alterations, much of this concerns the way in which the licence is drafted in the first place. It is extremely important—the Home Office inspectors have given considerable advice on this—that it is not too narrowly specified. Clearly, if it is specified narrowly and then it is changed, the licence has to be agreed again.
	So this is a question which is, to some extent, in the hands of the people putting in the applications. They should be drawn up properly and sensibly.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord is shaking his head.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Right. I have to say that there are many examples of this and the specification does not have to be so tight. If we can get that changed then we can get rid of many of these smaller alterations which obviously are holding up the scientific research.
	I turn to the question of the staffing of the animal procedures inspectorate. We said we would raise it from 21 to 33. It stands today at 28. Interviews have already been held with the idea of having the 33 in place by the end of March 2004, which was the timetable we gave for that.
	A question was raised about transgenic mice and genetically modified strains. There is an issue here. The Government agree with the current practice of including all genetically modified animals that are bred. The headline figure in the statistics of scientific procedures on living animals on whether or not they suffer adverse welfare effects may give some readers a false impression of the nature and extent of the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes. However, I do not think they can be totally excluded. We have asked the Animal Procedures Committee to consider as part of the wider review of the statistics how best to modify the format of content of the annual statistics to identify the information that is of most interest, and to present it in as clear a fashion as possible.
	Regarding applications to practise surgical training, the 1986 legislation does not prohibit the authorisation of projects for training in surgery. At present, the only such techniques authorised relate to training clinicians in microvascular techniques. Should an application be made for other categories of training in manual skills, this would be considered. So I think that there is a lack of communication. We need to make certain that if there is a real need for this that people put forward applications.
	The timing of the three Rs centre was raised. A progress report was made to Home Office Ministers in September. The responsible Minister, Caroline Flint, recently discussed some of the issues with scientific community representatives and asked for further work to be done and for a further progress report by early next year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised the question of better statistics on animal suffering. I have already dealt with that issue. We are getting on with that with the Animal Procedures Committee.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, raised a slightly separate issue on the question of providing better statistics on animal suffering. The Government agree that the provision of further and better information on the life experience of each animal used in scientific procedures would be desirable. Again, we have asked the Animal Procedures Committee to carry out a small pilot study on this as part of its wider review of the statistics.
	My noble friend Lord Plant and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised the question of lay members of the ethical review processes. This is an issue. We believe that involvement of lay members in local ethical review process is beneficial and we continue to encourage it. We have done so most recently in a Home Office circular issued in February this year. However, some establishments, as the Government explained, particularly smaller ones, have genuine difficulty in identifying and recruiting lay members. That is not surprising in the current climate of work on animal research.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of the forum and suggested that the inspectorate should convene a regular forum to discuss specific scientific and welfare issues related to the use of animals in experiments. We do not, however, see the inspectorate, whose role is essentially operations and technical, as naturally being best placed to lead and convene a forum of the kind envisaged by the committee and instead will ask the Animal Procedures Committee, which is a more broadly-based source of advice in these matters, to consider whether that is a role that it could undertake.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised the question of a Royal Commission. I would simply say that we have not ruled that out. Of course major changes have taken place since that point, which have addressed many of the issues.
	I thank noble Lords for a very well-informed and informative debate. I do not know whether I have answered everyone's questions. Quite a few were raised at the beginning of the debate, of which I have answered only the main ones. I shall look at the record of the debate and answer any specific questions to which I have not responded so far.
	The Select Committee has done a very important and useful job for us. I thank all its members for their work. These are very difficult and sensitive issues. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the 1986 Act continues to be implemented as effectively and as efficiently as possible. The committee's report and the views expressed today will inform the Government's further consideration of these issues.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I echo what the Minister has said and thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been wide-ranging. One of the things the Minister and the civil servants in the Box will take back with them is that there was near unanimity about the relative feebleness of the Government's initial response.
	I am very grateful to the Minister for coming here off the plane, which, as I said at the beginning, gives the right kind of signal. I am not sure that he has persuaded all of us that progress is being made quite as fast as we think it should be. But, he will know by the response today that further questions will be asked about that progress in the future. Of that there can be no doubt.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ragwort Control Bill

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In so doing, I must declare an interest. I am a vice-president of the British Horse Society, a past president and member of the National Pony Society, a vice-president of Ponies (UK), a member of the Highland Pony Society and a member of the Shire Horse Society. I have a Highland Pony stud and riding centre in north Yorkshire.
	I feel most honoured to have been asked by Mr John Greenway, Member of Parliament for Ryedale, whose Private Member's Bill it is, to take it through your Lordships' House. Ragwort has become a scourge in the countryside and has increased alarmingly in the past few years. I am told that each plant can produce between 150,000 and 250,000 seeds that, once airborne, can travel up to 10 miles. The seeds can lie dormant for 20 years in the soil before germinating. It is estimated that about 500 equines die each year, but that number will rise unless something positive is done.
	We have to use different methods of clearing ragwort in different places. This year at home I found ragwort growing on an island between two paths of a small river. I employed for a few weeks a young man who had just left university. He waded across the river and pulled the ragwort wearing protective gloves and clothing. I got him to put it in plastic bags, which he threw over the water and then took it away and burnt it far from stock. One cannot spray near water. This dangerous weed is not easy to get rid of. There needs to be good advice given in the code of practice.
	The Bill would amend the Weeds Act 1959 and would allow for the introduction of a code of practice to prevent and control the spread of common ragwort. Common ragwort is one of five injurious weeds specified under the Weeds Act 1959. It is the only one of the five weeds that is poisonous to animals. Horses and livestock are especially susceptible to ragwort poisoning.
	I applaud the honourable Member for Ryedale, Mr John Greenway, for introducing the Bill in another place earlier this year with the aim of protecting equines from the unnecessary suffering that can be inflicted through ingestion of ragwort. In preparing the Bill, Mr Greenway has worked closely with the British Horse Society. It has lobbied the Government for years about the dangers of ragwort. I hope that its efforts are about to come to fruition.
	The symptoms of ragwort poisoning are harrowing for both the animals and their owners. Initially, there are digestive disturbances including abdominal pain and diarrhoea. There may be emaciation and jaundice. Nervous signs may develop—especially in horses, ponies and donkeys. Those include restlessness and aimless, unco-ordinated movement. The ultimate consequences at that stage are always fatal.
	I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware of someone who has experienced the distress of seeing a much-loved pony or horse suffer from what can often be a slow and painful death. Some may have experienced it first hand.
	There is a myth that ragwort in its green state is not poisonous to horses because they do not eat it. That is not the case. Horses and ponies will eat ragwort growing in fields and paddocks and are more likely to ingest it at an early stage of growth. However, it is true that there is possibly a greater risk of horses suffering poisoning as a result of eating ragwort in dried forage. That is because the ragwort is more difficult to detect and is generally more palatable to animals, though no less poisonous, in its dried form.
	The Bill has an important role to play in protecting animal welfare. Clause 1 would insert a new section in the Weeds Act 1959. The new section would, first, enable the Secretary of State to devise a code of practice to provide guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort. Secondly, it would require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as considered appropriate before devising the code. Thirdly, it would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the code before Parliament. Fourthly, it would allow the Secretary of State to revise the code. Fifthly, it would provide that the code be admissible in evidence. Sixthly, it would provide that the code could be taken into account in questions arising in proceedings in court, if the code appeared relevant to the court.
	Those of your Lordships with an eye for detail may have noticed that the Bill refers to "Minister". That is a legal quirk due to the fact that the Weeds Act 1959 dates back to when the Minister responsible was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With the creation of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the functions previously exercised by that Minister transferred to the Secretary of State. However, to ensure legal compatibility with the Weeds Act 1959, the same language must be used in the Bill. "Minister" should therefore be taken as meaning the Secretary of State.
	Clause 2 ensures that the function of making a code of practice in Wales is transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. The functions under the Weeds Act 1959 relating to Wales were transferred to the National Assembly in 1999 by virtue of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. The Bill's references to "Minister" should, therefore, also be taking as meaning the National Assembly for Wales.
	Clause 3 states the Bill's short title and provides that it shall come into force three months after adoption. It also provides that the Bill applies in England and Wales only.
	The central part of the Bill is the code of practice. In many ways, the content of the code is more important than that of the Bill. Defra is to be congratulated on its willingness to work with the British Horse Society in anticipation of the Bill being passed to prepare a draft version of the code. That will enable the code to be put in place all the more swiftly should the House be ready to accept the Bill.
	The draft of the code was placed in the public domain by the right honourable Minister of State for Rural Affairs and Minister with responsibility for the horse, Alun Michael and Mrs Pat Campbell, chairman of the British Horse Society, at the Hickstead Royal International Horse Show at the end of July. That event was timed to coincide with the British Horse Society's annual Ragwort Action Week. I am sure that the British Horse Society would like me to thank the Minister of State not only for lending his support to its campaign but for advancing the work of preparing the code of practice so swiftly. Assuming that the Bill is successful today—as I earnestly hope that it will be—that will enable the code to be put in place at an early date.
	The code will strengthen enforcement and provide clear guidance for all landowners and occupiers on best practice to control the spread of ragwort. It will be especially relevant for local authorities and statutory organisations. It will advise on how to develop a strategic and more cost-effective approach to weed control. It will enable organisations to target their resources more directly at the real threat to animal welfare, and to plan more effectively on a longer-term basis.
	The code will give detailed advice on identification of common ragwort to ensure that those responsible for clearance do not mistake it for other types of ragwort, and indeed other similar plants, which are not covered by the Act and code.
	The code will set out how to carry out a risk assessment and establish priorities for ragwort control. It will provide information on all the different methods of weed control. It will advise on the most suitable method, taking into account efficacy of control, value for money and environmental considerations. In particular, it will take account of biological methods of control.
	Importantly, the code will take account of environmental considerations. I know that some people are worried about the environmental impact of the code. I very much understand those concerns, but they are unjustified. I should make it clear that the intention of the code is not to eliminate common ragwort; it is to protect animal welfare. The code will recognise that, in the right circumstances, common ragwort contributes to the diversity of flora and fauna in the countryside. It is perfectly possible to balance the interests of biodiversity and animal welfare, and that is what the code of practice aims to achieve.
	The code has another purpose. If the Ragwort Control Bill is adopted, the code will be admissible in enforcement proceedings under the Weeds Act. It would provide a yardstick against which compliance with an enforcement notice served under the Act can be measured. That will ensure that both parties know in advance what is considered reasonable action to comply with an enforcement notice. At present, there is no such guidance for parties. A person who can show compliance with the code will be in a better position to defend himself in proceedings brought against him under the Weeds Act.
	As I have said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to carry out formal consultation on the code and for the code to be laid before Parliament. Assuming that the House is good enough to adopt the Bill, there will therefore be a further opportunity for all interested parties to let the Government have their comments on the code.
	Media and press coverage of the Ragwort Control Bill and, in particular, the launch of the code of practice has been unprecedented in the history of the British Horse Society's campaign, with five major titles and BBC radio featuring the launch, as well as numerous regional radio stations, local newspapers and the equestrian press. There has been the occasional dissenting voice, but, as already mentioned, those concerns are unfounded.
	There has been a growing interest from local authorities and regional officers of the Highways Agency to become actively involved in controlling and preventing the spread of ragwort. It is expected that others will follow their lead, showing a willingness to comply with the code of practice and generally welcoming the Ragwort Control Bill.
	I know that some would have liked the Bill to have gone further and believe that it does not have enough teeth for enforcement. I am also aware that others are concerned that the proposed code may go too far. Neither side should be concerned. The honourable Member for Ryedale, Mr John Greenway, has achieved a satisfactory compromise. It is to the Government's credit that they have been willing to work with him to achieve that. Mr Greenaway said in another place,
	"in the practical world of Private Members' Bills, I am satisfied that, with the Minister's help, we have gone as far as we can".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/03; col. 1513.]
	I believe that the Ragwort Control Bill will be an important step forward in protecting animal welfare, which will be welcomed by horse and livestock owners and many others in the rural community. I commend it to the House and look forward to hearing noble Lords' speeches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the civil servants from Defra for their help.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Conservation and Wildlife, and my speech springs from that interest. The Bill, whose Second Reading has just been admirably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, went through the other place fairly smoothly and received a broadly warm welcome from such MPs as spoke. The Second Reading debate lasted just under two hours, the Committee stage 40 minutes, the Report stage 70 minutes and Third Reading a little over half an hour. It is unusual for Report to be longer than Committee, but that may have something to do tactically with other Private Members' Bills on that particular Friday morning.
	Most of the speeches in the other place concentrated on the iniquities of ragwort in relation to equine welfare—a phrase that was contained in the original title to the Bill. I should immediately make clear that I am not taking issue with that central point on which the noble Baroness has just spoken. It is a point that I entirely understand. A cousin and godson of mind, Dr James Wood, is prominent in equine research in Newmarket and Cambridge, and thus a resource available to me. However, there was comparatively little concentration in the other place on the compensating positive contribution that ragwort makes to biodiversity in its effects on other species. I want to make some allusion to those so that an impression is not left after parliamentary process that the eradication of ragwort per se should itself be the commanding objective of the Bill. Control is a semantically different condition from eradication.
	I warned the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I would make this intervention, but I have not had the opportunity to advise my parliamentary colleague Mr John Greenway MP, the progenitor of the Bill in the other place, and I apologise to him for that solecism through the pages of Hansard.
	The background to my concerns is the position statement on ragwort control of the Wildlife and Countryside Link. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, had not yet seen the statement last night, although in its latter stages, her speech suggested that she had considered the anxieties overnight. I imagine that the Minister on the Front Bench has seen the statement. For the record, the position statement is supported by the following member organisations of the Wildlife and Countryside Link: the British Ecological Society, Buglife—the Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Herpetological Conservation Trust, the National Trust, Plantlife, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust. That roll-call gives the statement a degree of gravitas.
	The subjects raised in the statement were little discussed in the other place, perhaps because the sponsor of the Bill was the British Horse Society, which is of course much involved in preparing the code. I should acknowledge, however, that Dr Derek Knottenbelt of Liverpool University was widely quoted, including as being the UK's leading specialist on ragwort poisoning, which, as I have said, is not a disputed issue. A distinguished exception to the general rule of "conservation is silence" in the other place was Miss Shona McIsaac, the MP for Cleethorpes, who herself has an academic background in this area and who spoke relevantly and at some length about the cinnabar moth. Even the Minister in the other place, Alun Michael MP, did not pay significant attention to the biodiversity issue, although I acknowledge that his support for the Bill on Second Reading, was conditional on Mr Greenway securing amendments to the Bill in Committee that the Government wanted to see. Of course, I am not privy to any conversations between the Minister and Mr Greenway on the substance of those amendments, but it was clear from the amendments in Committee that the Minister was to be under a statutory obligation to consult before issuing a code of practice for the purpose of providing guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort or senecio jacobaea.
	Preparatory progress was already being made on the code of practice even while the Bill was in the other place. English Nature was represented on the steering group, which may be why the Minister there felt that biodiversity considerations would be swept up in the consultation. There is a separate regulatory impact assessment currently subject to Defra consultation, but the consultation on the code of practice would follow only upon the Bill's enactment. It runs the risk of putting the cart before the horse—an apposite metaphor in the context of this Bill. I will give the Wildlife and Countryside Link's conclusions first, because it may help to make the basic point, which I can then briefly illustrate at the level of detail thereafter.
	Link argued that a review of the science should be undertaken to establish the full facts of the issue that should include fundamental data on the true spread of ragwort and the frequency of horse deaths from ragwort poisoning. Also, a full environmental impact assessment should be completed, which would mean an extension beyond the purely ragwort impact assessment in the regulatory impact assessment already published. Link concluded that it would not be able to endorse the code in the absence of reliable evidence that ragwort is increasing and on the frequency of horse deaths. In any case, greater emphasis should be given to the conservation importance of ragwort and the need to invest in the prevention of infestations by good pasture management rather than by widespread herbicide application because of its collateral consequences. In the context of the last point, the National Trust, which is a member of Link and one of the country's biggest landowners, has not experienced such a ragwort problem with animals grazing on its land. Link considers that the code should give precise recommendations to horse and pony owners on the appropriate stocking levels and other pasture management measures needed to reduce the development of ragwort seedlings. The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority website already has some useful guidance on horse pasture management. Because of the partial reliance of owners on bought-in forage, it also extends to either reducing that reliance or testing the hay before use. Hay producers should be included in the ragwort control measures and encouraged to certify that their hay is not contaminated.
	It would be pointless for me on a Friday to rehearse all the points made by Link in a position statement that runs to more than 20 paragraphs, but it may help if I illustrate by citing details in dispute, including points made in the other place that were not rebutted. I shall give one example. An MP said—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton quoted this—that a single ragwort plant could produce 150,000 to 200,000 seeds and that they could travel for miles in the wind. On the other hand, the Ecological Society of America has indicated from research that 89 per cent of ragwort seed travel no more than five metres, with none found more than 14 metres from source. I recognise that those two asseverations may be capable of reconciliation; I am not qualified to determine between them. It is an area in which greater scientific certainty would be reassuring.
	Similarly, Ragwort-UK—I take it from its title that it has a lobbying flavour—was quoted in the other place as saying that ragwort had increased by 50 per cent year on year in the past three years in places in which no action was taken to stop growth and in areas that it was monitoring. That is more alarmist language than that used in the conclusion of Preston, Pearman and Dines in the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora, published in 2002 that,
	"the distribution of senecio jacobaea"—
	ragwort—
	"is unchanged from the map in the 1962 atlas".
	Link is concerned that no evidence is provided to sustain paragraph 6 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states that ragwort is proliferating, quite apart from the 50 per cent claim made in paragraph 10. There have been few complaints or reports on ragwort from the farming sector, which the Weeds Act 1959 was designed to help.
	I acknowledge that that would all be academic, unless there were separate reasons of biodiversity to wish to see ragwort remain far from eradicated, even if controlled for the good reasons adduced in the Bill. Ragwort supports many species of wildlife and is an important food plant for common broomrape—orobanche minor—and 14 species of fungi. Many invertebrates depend on it for survival. Some 177 invertebrate species have been reported feeding on ragwort nectar. An information note published by English Nature in 2003 suggests that,
	"it is the food of at least 77 species of insect herbivore, 27 species of moth, 22 species of thrip, 13 species of bug, nine species of flies and six species of beetle".
	Of those, the most famous is the cinnabar moth, which was quoted by Miss McIsaac in the other place. Of the 77 species of insect herbivore, five are red data book examples, and eight are nationally scarce.
	A recent review by Buglife—the Invertebrate Conservation Trust—identified 30 invertebrates as being confined to ragwort. Three beetles and four flies were nationally scarce, and one of the flies may deserve red data book status. Lest all that seem de minimis, certain groups of such insects particularly associated with ancient trees use ragwort as a nectar source, especially when the mid-season sources of nectar are scarce.
	I am vividly conscious that, at this stage of the Bill's progress, amendments are potentially fatal because of the lack of time at this stage of the Session to reconcile positions on Private Members' Bills between the two Houses. Therefore, as the Government will, ultimately, be primarily involved if the Bill becomes an Act, I seek a view from the Minister on whether Link's current apprehensions have substance. Secondly, assuming to a greater or lesser degree that they do, how does the Minister envisage assuaging them? Thirdly, does the Minister envisage or contemplate a full environment impact assessment beyond the rather slender one contained in the regulatory impact assessment which concentrates on ragwort itself and not on the collateral consequences for other species?
	Finally, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, for the third time of asking, neither Link nor I belittle for a moment the hazards to horses occasioned by ragwort poisoning. Our concerns are that the response to the problem should be proportionate and not disproportionate.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing a Bill which allows us to debate such an important subject. Secondly, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for taking up many of the Wildlife and Countryside Link points, which will allow me to make a slightly shorter speech.
	Do we really need legislation? The Weeds Act 1959 gave Ministers the power to introduce enforcement for the five weeds listed, which included ragwort. It gave the Minister the power to prevent the spread of the weeds and to impose penalties. It also gave him default powers so that should a landowner take no action, he could call for the work to be done. It also laid down provision for expenses. Are we legislating because successive governments have failed to enforce the powers given to them under the original Bill? If so, that sets a bad precedent: every time there is a problem, instead of looking for ways of solving it which already exist, we seek to introduce yet more legislation.
	Secondly, I echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. He helpfully explained that it has been shown that ragwort is not proliferating. Does the Minister think that perhaps ragwort has become more visible because the Highways Agency and Network Rail, for example, are not dealing with it along the sides of roads and railways where people tend to see it far more? However, horses do not graze there and hay is not made in those places. Although I accept that ragwort can seed and blow over into adjoining land, it needs to be balanced with the expense of getting rid of it in those places so that the ragwort is less visible.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned important biodiversity considerations. If the figures can be substantiated—I have no reason to suspect that they are inaccurate—I, too, would not belittle the fact that 500 horse deaths a year are very serious. That needs to be dealt with. How many deaths are of horses grazing in ragwort and how many of them are horses eating hay that contains ragwort? One solution might be that people producing hay need to certify it as "ragwort free".
	On the biodiversity issue, will the code offer adequate restrictions on the use of herbicides for the control of ragwort at sites of special scientific interest and at national and local nature reserves? That point was raised by Wildlife and Countryside Link. The last thing we need is for all the species listed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which depend on ragwort, to be harmed. Many sites of scientific interest contain ancient hay meadows. We do not want to spray them with herbicides. In those places ragwort should be pulled as opposed to sprayed.
	Can the Minister address the question of whether he is satisfied that creating a code and then enforcing it will not be disproportionately burdensome on small businesses? The Government make much of deregulation and less red tape, but this Bill, while well-intentioned towards horse owners, really moves in the other direction.
	While at this stage I do not oppose the Bill because I should very much like to hear the Minister's reply, I put it to the Government that they have powers under the original Weeds Act 1959 to enforce all the issues surrounding ragwort; they are simply not being used.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my honourable friend John Greenway on bringing forward this Bill, which we support. It seeks to control the vicious and poisonous weed, ragwort, a pernicious weed that is dangerous to livestock, humans and, in particular, horses. Defra should also be congratulated on its positive attitude in dealing with the Bill, to which at present we have no plans to table amendments.
	I declare an interest as a former livestock farmer, amateur jockey and international event rider. I am also a member of the British Horse Society and, as a land manager, a member of the NFU. During my time with horses, until around 1994, I cannot remember ragwort presenting a major problem. So what has caused the alarming increase of this weed? The causes may be due to the demise of farming, the dramatic drop in livestock numbers and changes in grassland husbandry practices. It may be that people do not follow good livestock practices as carefully as once they used to.
	I was alarmed to read in Commons Hansard a speech made by Mr Greenway on 21st March 2003 at col. 1225. He told of a situation concerning a lady who runs a riding school in West Bromwich. She and her friends lease the land from the local authority. It is infested with ragwort and they are losing their horses. I had thought that all livestock owners, especially horse owners, would check their fields for ragwort and certainly not turn out their valuable animals if any ragwort was present. All the equestrian publications say as much. However, I was reassured to read in the draft code of practice that:
	"The primary responsibility for control rests with the occupier of the land on which the weeds are growing.
	My experience of ragwort is in the parkland and other grassland areas of my home, where it has been a problem for 10 years or more. A charming man who went by the name of Cookie used to be responsible for ragwort control in the parkland. He had a bad habit of pulling the plants and then leaving them in his wooden-floored trailer, which he would drive around the land for several days thereafter. I fear that he may well have sown more ragwort than he pulled, for the seed probably fell through the gaps in the wooden floor of the trailer. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I strongly suggest that if ragwort is pulled, it must be disposed of in a safe place—and not carried in one's gloved hand as one walks around. This may result in the hand-sowing of ragwort seeds.
	Noble Lords may be interested to learn that, over recent years, during the midsummer months we have used the equivalent of one man per day to control ragwort infestation in the parkland area. Starting in April or May, we have employed chemical spot treatment using citronella oil. The oil does not pose a hazard to the environment or to human health. Indeed, it is used by humans to avoid being bitten by mosquitoes. Later in the season, as the ragwort rosettes begin to grow above the surrounding pasture, we apply a glyphosate swipe, and finally we pull it. This operation is carried out until the end of September. Even in a drought year such as this, pulling the weed proved relatively easy.
	The control of ragwort is best tackled using a variety of techniques. The draft code of practice describes several of them, but has little to say about how to stop infestation through good grassland management. Trying to control ragwort is rather like trying to control grey squirrels: for one year you seem to have made an extra effort and have managed to control their numbers, but come the next year, they are back in force.
	The financial cost of control is huge. Non-parkland grassland would be less challenging to control if we went back to basic grassland management techniques. During my time at the Royal College of Cirencester, the then renowned teacher of grassland management, Dai Barling, used to say in his Welsh accent, "Fertilise and cut". He meant that swards should be well grazed by livestock at monthly intervals, with small dressings of fertiliser applied at the end of grazing. This resulted in an excellent, strong pasture comprising about 80 per cent ryegrasses, a pasture in which it would be difficult for any pernicious weed to establish itself.
	We are advised that ragwort arrived in Britain from Sicily in the late 16th century. Little or no mention of it is made in literature and paintings. Presumably good agricultural practices and natural predators dealt with it. So why has ragwort not reared its head in the past 400 years until now? What has changed? I checked with some MAFF publications of the 1980s to see whether it was a serious problem then. I found virtually no mention of it. The pamphlet, Weed Control in grassland, herbage, legumes and grass seed crops 1983–84, mentioned that there were no chemicals that gave,
	"consistently good control—both shoots and roots.
	So what was controlling it? Why do we have a problem with ragwort now? Legislating before we answer these questions properly I hope will not result in bad legislation.
	The Bill has been drafted in the belief that a code of practice is the answer. The code of practice offered by the Bill is a supportive, practical guide to help public bodies, relevant authorities, owners and occupiers of land to control the spread of ragwort, thus preventing the death of livestock, especially horses. Thus the code must be balanced and workable for the Bill to succeed.
	The draft code of practice gives important and excellent advice. For example, it advises on issues such as those found in the Agricultural Act 1970 and the feedstuff regulations 2000 which govern the sale of animal feed and forage and make it an offence to sell animal feed and forage that contains a poisonous weed such as ragwort—for example, in hay.
	The code of practice should perhaps be expanded in some areas to explain matters more fully. For instance, it states:
	"Control methods should take into account public access and safety and a suitably sufficient risk assessment must be undertaken prior to control".
	What are the implications of that?
	One might be surprised to find other advice in this code—such as that found on page 21, section 169—which states:
	"Suitable facemasks should be made available so that they may be worn to avoid the inhalation of ragwort pollen and to reduce the risk of hay fever".
	I have bad hay fever but I have never come across this problem.
	It also states in another section that:
	"You should not attempt to dig or pull ragwort in poor visibility or during the hours of darkness on roads".
	Is this the kind of advice we really need?
	My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville mentioned pasture management, an issue to which I have already referred. I fully concur with him. Perhaps the code of practice could have added advice on good grassland management. For instance, pasture that has been heavily grazed by horses and ponies should be rested and then grazed by cattle—or, better still, by sheep—to help renovate the pasture, thus making it less vulnerable to seeding ragwort. Horses and ponies grazing on pasture degrade it badly.
	The code also perhaps could have added advice on the cinnabar moth and given an address for the purchasing of cinnabar grubs. I, for one, should like to purchase some. We know that biological methods of control such as moths and beetles have led to the eradication of 85 per cent of ragwort plants in Tasmania. I should stress that I am not advocating eradication. In the pamphlet that I have on this issue, I was reading "eradication" for "control". I, for one, would like to see more about natural control in the code of practice.
	May I ask the Minister two further questions? Where land managers are required to clear the ragwort, will this mean the removal of the flowering stem or the non-flowering rosette as well? Secondly, what measures to control ragwort in Scotland is he aware of?

Lord Whitty: I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness on bringing the Bill forward in this House and to the Member of the other House, Mr John Greenway, on his work on this legislation. The Government have co-operated with a private Member in another place and in this House; we believe very strongly that the Bill has merit and fully deserves support, with the aim of protecting animals. That is why my colleague Alun Michael has been working very closely with Mr John Greenway. It is also why we are prepared to issue a draft code of practice in advance of the adoption of the Bill and why Alun Michael has made a commitment in another place that the Government would introduce the code on a voluntary basis, should the Bill, unfortunately, not find favour in this House. But I believe that with some reassurances that I and, no doubt, the noble Baroness can give, it should accept the Bill.
	Clearly, all noble Lords who have spoken recognise that a real threat is posed to equine and animal welfare from ragwort poisoning, which can have a devastating effect on equine businesses. It is not simply a threat to individual horses and their owners but to the operation of some of those equine businesses which are playing an increasingly significant role in the wider rural economy. With regard to that, Alun Michael has recently announced the first ever joint research projects into the horse industry. They will provide for a long-term development strategy of a major feature of our rural areas and a growing area in which recreation and other activities of the population as a whole are focused in our countryside.
	The horse, the welfare of the horse and the economic benefit of horse-based industries, are therefore very significant in the countryside. The damage that ragwort poisoning can do is therefore important from an economic as well as an animal welfare viewpoint.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked why we need additional powers. The Weeds Act 1959, which is a relatively ancient piece of legislation going back over 40 years, was, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated, primarily for the protection of farmers rather than animals and was certainly not specifically directed at horse welfare. The Bill would insert a new section that would enable the Secretary of State to make a code of practice which would help the enforcement of the Act as it would give the courts an indication of what was reasonable in order to comply with orders and general duties under the Act. That is why we need an additional piece of legislation which is within the context of the Weeds Act but takes it further, and gives greater guidance to landowners and others who have responsibility for the control of ragwort on how any orders should be carried out.
	The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, cast some doubt on whether ragwort had significantly increased, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, replied. Some of the claims for increasing ragwort may be a bit exaggerated and based on localised infestations. The most recent national countryside survey found no overall increase in fertile or infertile grasslands during the period to 1998, but there was a significant increase in the frequency of ragwort in lowland woods and on arable land. Indeed, in some localised areas, including those managed and owned by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, there has been an increase in grassland as well. There has been an overall increase on certain types of land, and some increase on other types of land at a local level.
	It is also true that we are dealing with a country and a society that makes more use of the horse for recreational purposes than has otherwise been the case. In other words, more horses are exposed to casual eating of ragwort than would have been the case 50 years ago. Therefore, on both sides of the equation, we have an increase of equines to this dangerous plant. Ragwort poisoning is not inevitable and proper management of ragwort will ensure that the danger to horses is minimised.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, recognised that there were some concerns about the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link evidence, of which I was aware and which I have now seen in some detail.
	The code of practice and methods of enforcement will need to take account of those environmental and biodiversity concerns. However, I believe that the Bill and draft code of practice strike the right balance. The code of practice will protect animal welfare, but without imposing new burdens of expenditure on industry and government, and in the longer term might even save some expenditure to some businesses in rural areas. At the same time, it also strikes a balance in relation to environmental concerns. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, we are aiming not for eradication of ragwort but for a proper control system. The code of practice respects the need to maintain biodiversity and seeks to ensure a rich and varied flora and fauna in the countryside. It also provides specific guidance on how to deal with environmentally sensitive areas, and on the types of control, advising on whether to use herbicides in different circumstances—including the sites of special scientific interest referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We are not aiming for an elimination or eradication programme; we are aiming for proper management and control.
	The regulatory impact assessment has been revised since its original form to take more note of some of those concerns. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was referring to the original or the current one. The revised version is now in the Library of the House. The revised code of practice will need to take account of some of the environmental concerns expressed by the noble Lord and the Wildlife and Countryside Link. In that context, we shall also consider again the environmental impact aspect of this question. The process will need to be subject to widespread consultation before we get the final version of the code of practice. Clearly, that consultation will include environmental and other organisations which have an interest in maintaining the diversity of the countryside.
	Following the launch of the draft code at Hickstead at the end of July, we have already had several people writing in with comments to Defra, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link, and others. Until the Bill is passed, we shall not be in a formal consultation period, but I assure all those who have sent in such comments that, if the Bill is passed, they will also be taken into account in the formal consultation period and fully considered when we prepare the final text of the code.
	The National Assembly for Wales will consult separately on a code of practice for Wales. I cannot directly answer the question about Scotland put by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I am not aware that Scotland is moving in parallel, and I am not sure whether people in Scotland perceive ragwort as such a big problem. In any case, as the noble Lord knows, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. If it is taking such steps, I shall ensure that he is informed.
	We recognise the concerns, but we also recognise that there is quite a serious problem. The Liverpool University research to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred estimates that at least 500 horses a year die, and others suffer serious illness, as a result of eating ragwort. Others have put the estimate somewhat higher. That is why we have given the Bill our backing. It is worthy of your Lordships' support. Once again, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing it before the House today.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and the Minister for their most interesting speeches. The idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, regarding selling ragwort-free hay is a very good one. I hope that it can be included in the code of practice. It is an excellent idea. Those of us who have to buy hay are always worried about hidden ragwort.
	The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, was exceedingly interesting. I learnt a lot about beetles and flies. I wonder whether the group of which he is a member would consider what ragwort seeds might do to birds. As ragwort is so poisonous to animals and human beings, the seeds may be dangerous to birds. That may explain why sparrows have disappeared from my part of the world.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and I share the same problem regarding getting rid of ragwort. It is a problem. I am sure the whole House will be aware that ragwort will not be eliminated. I am a Scot and various friends who visited me this year said that there was a huge amount of ragwort in Scotland. Perhaps Scotland will take note of this Bill if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, which, having thanked everyone, I now ask noble Lords to do.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the enactment of the Communications Act 2003 on 17th July heralded the creation of a new regulatory framework covering media ownership, broadcasting and electronic communications networks and services under the regulation of the Office of Communications.
	On 29th December Ofcom, whose board was established under the Office of Communications Act 2002 to prepare for the creation of a new regulatory framework, is expected to assume its full powers under the Communications Act 2003. On that day the second commencement order will effect the transfer to Ofcom of the responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Radio Authority, Oftel and the Radiocommunications Agency. Staff will also formally transfer on that day to coincide with the transfer of functions.
	The purpose of the order which we are debating today is to provide a key definition related to the regulator's power to impose fines on communications providers who contravene the conditions of entitlement; that is, it will define the meaning of "turnover" as the basis for specifying the maximum fine which can be imposed. Once the order is approved, Ofcom will be able to exercise its powers to impose penalties under the networks and services provisions of the Communications Act 2003, and in the transitional period up to 28th December, these powers will be exercisable by Oftel. An explanatory memorandum setting out the policy background to the order was laid before Parliament with the order on 8th September.
	The power to impose penalties supports and strengthens the enforcement procedures set out in Sections 94 and 95 of the Act. Section 94 provides for a notification to be given to a provider who is contravening any condition of entitlement. If the contravention is not rectified within the period specified in the notice—usually not less than a period of one month—Section 95 allows for the issue of a notice, which can be enforced through the courts, specifying corrective action. Section 96 allows Ofcom to impose a penalty on a provider either where a notified contravention has not been put right within the specified period, or where a subsequent enforcement notice has not been complied with.
	The Act therefore provides Ofcom with the flexibility to impose a penalty as an alternative to an enforcement notice, or in addition to it, where that is appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Ofcom must notify the decision to impose a penalty, the reasons for it, and the period within which the penalty is to be paid to the person on whom it is being imposed within one week of its decision. Where Ofcom is satisfied that a person is in serious and repeated breach of any conditions, and that the imposition of penalties, an enforcement notice or both under Section 95 has failed to secure compliance, Ofcom can suspend or restrict the person's entitlement to provide networks and services and/or associated facilities.
	Section 97 of the Act sets out the penalty that can be imposed under Section 96, and it is in that context that the definition of turnover provided by the order is necessary. In deciding on the amount of penalty, Ofcom is required to take account of any representations made by the notified provider, as well as any steps taken by him to comply with the notified condition and to remedy the consequences of the contraventions.
	The penalty has to be appropriate and proportionate to the contravention for which it is imposed and is not, in any event, to exceed 10 per cent of the turnover of that person's relevant business for the relevant period. Relevant business is defined in Sections 97(5) to (7) and broadly consists of any one or more of the provisions of an electronic communications network or service, the making available of associated facilities, the supply of directories, the making available of directory inquiry facilities or the supply of electronic communications apparatus. The relevant period is defined in Section 97(5) as one year ending on the 31st March preceding the notification, subject to exceptions for providers who have not been carrying on business for a full year, or who have gone out of business.
	Section 97(3)(a) provides that the turnover of a person's relevant business for a relevant period shall be calculated in accordance with such rules as may be set out by order made by the Secretary of State. It is simply that order that we are debating today.
	Before I explain the rules, it might be helpful if I were to point out that placing the definition in secondary legislation rather than the Act itself is consistent with the practice of the Competition Act and of various utility statutes, as indeed is the maximum value that the order adopts of 10 per cent. A definition in secondary legislation will provide the flexibility to amend the rather technical definition as future circumstances may require, without the need to amend the parent Act.
	The rules are contained in the schedule to the order, and provide that turnover is limited to amounts derived from the relevant business, net of sales rebates, VAT and other taxes directly related to turnover. Where the relevant business consists of two or more undertakings, the turnover is to be calculated by adding together the turnover of each undertaking, excluding turnover resulting from the supply of goods or the provision of services between them.
	The rules also provide that any aid granted by a public body to a notified provider which relates to one of the provider's ordinary activities should be included in the calculation if the notified provider is himself the recipient of that aid and it is directly linked to the carrying out of the relevant business. The intention is that the turnover taken into account is suitably related to the business on which a penalty is being considered by Ofcom. In addition, the turnover of a notified provider has to be calculated in conformity with accounting practices and principles that are generally accepted in the UK.
	Public consultation was undertaken on the order and produced only one minor comment, to the effect that the order should clarify that the basis for accounting should be practices and principles which are generally accepted in the United Kingdom. We were happy to make that small change.
	Noble Lords will be aware that although Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to secondary legislation, the Government have confirmed, as is customary, to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that the order is compatible with convention rights.
	The overall effect of the new regulatory regime established under the Communications Act 2003 is assessed in the regulatory impact assessment carried out for the then Communications Bill. This order, which sets the rules for determining the turnover to be taken into account for setting the cap on financial penalties, introduces no additional regulatory burden and is key to Ofcom's effective regulation of electronic communication networking services. I therefore commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this complex and technical order. The primary legislation out of which it arises is the Communications Act, Sections 96 and 97. That part of the Act arises, in turn, from no fewer than five EC directives, which, in shorthand, are called the Access Directive, the Authorisation Directive, the Framework Directive, the Universal Service Directive and the Privacy Directive. Some of us feel that that is typical of the red tape which comes from Brussels.
	The penalty regime comes from the Authorisation Directive in respect of which Ofgem issued what it called "an explanation". However, it was littered with an alphabet-soup of acronyms, such as NRA, ECN, ECS, AF and so on.
	As is common with such legislation, offences are deemed to have been committed by corporations and not by individuals. As a judge once remarked, the problem with corporations is that they have no soul to damn or body to kick. Therefore, any penalties for infraction of the law, short of cancelling their licences, have to be financial. Given the size and worth of some of the corporations, the penalties have to be substantial if they are to amount to more than what they spend on paperclips.
	Throughout EC legislation, the penalties are based on turnover. But, as the Minister has pointed out, that gives rise to another problem; that there is not always unanimity among accountants on the definition of "turnover".
	The Minister has confirmed that prior to the laying of the order, and prior to the passage of the primary legislation, the Government carried out consultation. The only response they received was from the Mobile Broadband Group and it was incorporated in the requirements to strike out taxes and sales rebates and inter-company trading. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding and confirming what is in the directive.
	Will the Minister confirm that in an attempt to achieve consistency in future legislation, whether under the Communications Act or other measures, and where a penalty regime is linked to turnover, the Government will automatically introduce the same qualification about the use of GAP—generally accepted UK accounting principles—without having to be asked to do so? So often in statutory instruments, definitions are slightly different. That is unhelpful to the regulator, to the Government and to British industry in making use of it. Consistency is most helpful to all parties concerned.
	Apart from that request, we do not oppose the making of the order.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House. We on these Benches are also grateful to the Minister for his full explanation of the regulations, particularly remarkable in view of the way in which he had to spend the past 48 hours. They are helpful in providing a proper framework for the definition of "turnover" in order that the provisions of the Communications Act can be carried out. We support them.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the suggestion of setting the definition in accordance with accounting practices and principles which are generally accepted in the United Kingdom was sensible. We will bear that point in mind in future legislation of this kind.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advanced Television Services Regulations 2003

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 21st July, be annulled (S.I. 2003/1901).

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I begin by making it clear that I raise no objection to the principle of the legislation proposed. The establishment and co-ordination of common standards for television makes sense for all parties. But the regulations as drafted are, in my view, deficient.
	I had hoped to be able to give the Minister advance warning of some of my concerns—indeed, I did so about two minutes ago. The forthcoming business announcement suggested that the debate was to be responded to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I spoke to staff in the noble Lord's office, who told me that they did not believe he was responding and that they would ring me back and tell me who would be. I imagine that at that time the Minister was about 36,000 feet in the air somewhere, so it would not have been easy for us to have spoken. But I did try to ensure that we could have as useful a debate as possible this afternoon.
	I have the pleasure of reading through many statutory instruments from the Minister's department. Quite often, they appear to me to be unclear or unhelpfully drafted in some single aspect or another. In such circumstances, it is my practice to table a parliamentary Question for Written Answer. Indeed, I tabled four such Questions yesterday. I nurture the hope—it is only a faint hope, but it is a hope none the less—that somehow those parliamentary Questions and Answers are attached to the master file so that, when revisions come to be made, improved drafting, thus making the whole matter clear beyond peradventure, is incorporated in the new version.
	However, from time to time, in individual regulations, the lacuna becomes lacunae and the issue needs to be addressed in more detail. This statutory instrument—SI 2003/1901—is one such case, and I shall seek to persuade the Minister that the regulations that are drafted are unclear, unfair and, in at least one aspect, downright incorrect.
	I want to make five points. For ease of reference, I shall deal with them in the order that they appear in the statutory instrument. First, I draw the Minister's attention to the point that I raised a few minutes ago on the definition of "wide-screen television service" on page 2 of the regulations. It states that the wide-screen television service is,
	"to be displayed with a height-width ratio of 16:9".
	I assume—I may be incorrect—that that means a ratio of 16 in height to nine in width. Is that really what is meant? Are wide-screen televisions meant to be higher than they are wide? That is not the wide-screen television service that I have seen or receive. Those I have seen are wider than they are high; in other words, they are landscape rather than portrait. There can be only two answers to that. Either the height-width ratio is not in dimensions known to the man in the street or it should be a height-width ratio of 9:16, which would be the other way round. That is a matter of fact with which I am sure the Minister's officials can deal.
	Secondly, I ask the Minister to turn to paragraph 4(4)(a) of the schedule, which states:
	"The officer may seize and detain . . . any document, record or information or any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for believing may be required",
	to conduct investigations or prosecutions. The seizure and detention of documents is a serious matter. It could gravely impede the operation of the firm in question, even causing its closure. At the stage that the documents are seized or detained, the firm is only accused; it is not convicted. But if wholesale detention of documents takes place, the firm may ultimately be found not guilty but may have gone out of business in the interim. Being found not guilty in those circumstances will be cold comfort.
	Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that after the word "detain" there should be inserted words to the effect—I am not trying to do a draftsman's job for him—
	"but shall on request provide copies of all documents detained".
	I understand that the originals will need to be taken as they will be required for the prosecution of the court case. But the firm should have copies of the documents to enable it to continue to operate until the case is determined. If it is found guilty, that is fine; if not, then the firm will have been able to operate in the interim period.
	Thirdly, I ask the Minister to turn to the second part of that paragraph—4(4)(a)(ii). That takes the issue even wider as it concerns seizure and detention for or on behalf of,
	"the authorities of a member State other than the United Kingdom for the purposes of the exercise of their functions with regard to the Universal Service Directive".
	I believe it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House how that will work. For example, could documents seized from a UK firm—it may be only a small or medium-sized firm—end up in Lisbon or Athens? That seems to be an extraordinarily draconian and open-ended set of powers. Where is the check and balance to protect the position of the small and medium-sized firm during the period when its guilt or innocence has not yet been proven when faced with such a search and when faced with the documents being moved to the other end of the European continent?
	Fourthly, I refer to paragraph 5(2)(b)(i), which concerns the issue of search warrants and when a justice of the peace may issue a search warrant. He may issue it if he is also satisfied by any such information either that admission to the premises has been or is likely to be refused. How and on what basis of information will a justice of the peace reach a judgment about,
	"is likely to be refused"?
	Is there not a real danger that that provision could be used for fishing expeditions? Officials in the Box will no doubt say, "But the noble Lord has not read the second half of the sentence", which states,
	"and that notice of an intention to apply for a warrant under this subparagraph has been given to the occupier".
	But that is not a safeguard. The reality is that in (b)(ii) the safety valve can be firmly closed, because it states:
	"the giving of such a notice, would defeat the object of the entry [to the premises]".
	So where admission to the premises is "likely to be refused", a search warrant can be issued. There is no safeguard whatever because in all cases the weights and measures inspectors wanting to make the investigation can say, "If I give such a notice, undoubtedly the person will take advantage of it".
	Can the Minister explain, first, how the provision will work and, secondly, why the words,
	"or is likely to be refused"
	should not be removed?
	Fifthly, I refer to the last part of paragraph 5(2), which states:
	"the justice may by warrant under his hand, which shall continue in force for one month, authorise any officer",
	and so forth. No mention is made of dating the warrant. There has been anecdotal evidence of the use of signed but undated warrants, which are like blank cheques.
	During the passage of the Animal Health Bill in October and November last year, there was considerable discussion of the dating of warrants. During the course of the debate on 8 October 2002, recorded in Hansard at col. 190, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, stated that she had seen a warrant signed by a magistrate and left for the details to be filled in by whomsoever executed it. I am sure the Minister would agree that that is a very undesirable practice and would want to take steps to eradicate it. In pursuance of that objective, does he not agree that the regulation would be improved if after "which" one inserted the words, "shall be dated at the time of signing and", so that the paragraph would read:
	"The justice may by warrant under his hand, which shall be dated at the time of signing and shall continue in force for one month",
	and so forth?
	Sixthly, and finally, I draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph 7, which concerns appeals against detention of equipment. This is hardware which cannot be copied and therefore once removed is no longer available to the firm. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to subparagraph (3) which is the safety valve from the point of view of the person who considers that his equipment has been unfairly detained. It states that an order requiring equipment to be released shall be made only if the court is satisfied that no proceedings for forfeiture had begun and that more than six months have elapsed since the equipment was seized.
	Six months is a hugely long time for someone who might be innocent to be unable to reclaim his equipment. Again I stress that these are firms that at the point of seizure are innocent. They may be proved to be guilty but they are innocent at that time. To have equipment seized and to be unable to apply to reclaim it for more than six months seems another very harsh penalty. Perhaps the Minister could explain why six months. Surely pressure should be put on the prosecuting authorities to move with more urgency. In doing so, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain whether this provision will also apply to non-UK jurisdictions; that is to say, can equipment be detained and removed, as I said, to some other European centre?
	To conclude, I believe that, while the purpose of these regulations is not objectionable, the wording, the drafting and the balance of them is unfair and wrong. Since we cannot amend them, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw them and to resubmit them in a better and fairer form. If I am right about the 16 to nine ratio, I think he has no option. Therefore, I beg to move.
	Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 21st July, be annulled (S.I. 2003/1901).—(Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots.)

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to talk about some of the technical requirements of these regulations.
	The context in which we have made these regulations is that, as he said, of the four directives on regulation of electronic communications networks and services, which were adopted by the European Community in 2002. These are the Framework Directive, the Authorisation Directive, the Access Directive and the Universal Service Directive. Together they provide a comprehensive overhaul of the framework in European law for the regulation of these services. The UK strongly supports this new harmonised framework, which will strengthen competition throughout Europe.
	The directives had to be transposed into national law with effect from the 25th July this year. As many of your Lordships will be aware, the major part of this transposition was effected through the Communications Act, which received Royal Assent on 17th July. The relevant provisions of the Act were commenced on 25th July. However, some aspects of the transposition were effected through other instruments, including these regulations. Specifically, these regulations transpose Article 4(2) of the Access Directive, and also Article 24 and Annex VI of the Universal Service Directive. These provisions replace Directive 95/47/EC on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals. In 1996 our predecessors thought that it was appropriate to transpose the 1995 directive by means of regulations.
	Given their largely technical nature, we have taken the same route this time. But these regulations have of course to be viewed as part of the overall task of transposition, and are subject to the UK's obligations to implement these directives on the specified date—that is, 25th July 2003.
	The regulations cover three separate issues. The first deals with widescreen television services. Regulation 4 requires that all digital television networks must be able to transmit television programmes in the widescreen format, that is with a ratio of 16 to nine. This requirement was included in the 1996 regulations. However, the new regulations, flowing from the new directives, also require that any digital television signal that is received for retransmission in widescreen format must be retransmitted in the same format. This extra requirement will cover, for instance, the situation where a broadcaster transmits its services in widescreen format over the terrestrial network and these services are then picked up by a cable network for onward transmission over its network. This provision relates to services and will be enforced by Ofcom as if it were a general condition under the Communications Act.
	The second issue is the application of the common scrambling algorithm and the transmission of unscrambled images. The intention is that consumers should be able to view on their television sets all digital services to which they are entitled whether or not the broadcaster transmits them scrambled, for example to protect rights. Regulation 5 places the same requirements on descramblers of digital television signals as Regulation 9 of the 1996 regulations. However, it is slightly narrower in scope and covers only consumer equipment which is intended for the reception of digital television signals, rather than equipment that is capable but not intended for that purpose.
	The third issue is the interoperability of television sets with other equipment, such as video recorders, digital adapters and digital video disc players. All analogue television sets above a minimum screen size—approximately 17 inches diagonally across the screen—are required to have at least one standardised open interface socket: what the industry normally refers to as a SCART socket. That applies also to integrated digital television sets which can receive and display analogue signals, and hence covers all integrated digital television sets currently available in this country.
	In addition, for digital television sets with a screen size greater than approximately 12 inches the standardised open interface socket must permit the passage of all the elements of a digital television signal. Those elements include information relating to interactive and conditionally accessed services. The 1996 regulations include those requirements, but the new regulations clarify how they should be applied to analogue televisions and integrated digital television sets.
	The regulations have been the subject of public consultation and take due account of the responses received from broadcasters, manufacturers and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. Like the regulations that they replace, they are intended to ensure a minimum level of interoperability that supports considerable consumer benefits. It is important that consumers can buy or rent equipment confident that it will provide access to all the expected television services.
	The market for television receivers is developing rapidly. Gone are the days when we had a choice of a small box or bigger box that gave access to services that could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. We have a range of ways of watching television services: whether using a single television set, a screen connected to a decoder of signals, or by adding an adapter box to a television. We can also connect a variety of recording and other equipment to the television. We can plug in a module to provide access to audio description services. But all of those options are available only if there is a common means of connecting the various boxes and screens together.
	For that reason, there must be some minimum requirements of the kind set out in these regulations. In due course, they may need amendment at European level to reflect new market developments, but for now they are the agreed way of supporting the internal market in television sets for use with today's television services.
	I turn to some of the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. He asked about the height: width ratio of 16:9. Of course, that should have been the width: height ratio, and we shall take steps to rectify that. He asked about paragraph 5(2). The use of warrants beyond one month is unlawful, but I shall take account of his suggestion of dating warrants when considering what amendments should be made. The provision in paragraph 4(4)(a) is the same provision as in the 1996 regulation and has caused no problem until now, but, again, we shall take account of the noble Lord's point when deciding what amendment may be needed.
	He also asked about Paragraph 4(4)(a)(ii). I fear that without notes I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question about the universal service directive. I shall write to him when I have had the opportunity to consider the point.
	Finally, the noble Lord mentioned paragraph 5(2)(b)(i). A justice of the peace will not grant a warrant unless he is properly satisfied of the likelihood of refusal. That is not something that he will take lightly, but I shall consider what may be done to deal with that point.
	I hope that that answers the points raised by the noble Lord. There is little difference between the regulations and those that the noble Lord's party introduced when in government. Now, as then, we are implementing provisions that have been proposed by the European Commission, discussed extensively with industry and agreed by member states. They are fair and necessary.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the Minister very properly spent a good deal of his speech talking about the commercial objectives of the regulations, such as screen size and algorithms. As I said, those objectives are unobjectionable. However, we are concerned about the detail. I am not clear what the Minister is going to do. The statutory instrument as formulated is incorrect.
	Earlier this year, when I discovered a problem with the Police and Criminal Evidence regulations and informed the then Home Office Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the issue was much simpler: one page had been omitted during photostatting. The page was correct, but it had not been included. The authorities said that we had to start again, because the provision could not be altered. I do not think that we can take such an important detail as the height: width ratio and say, "Sorry about that, we meant width: height". We cannot amend it.
	I hear what the Minister says about the other points. I look forward to seeing whether he will make changes on that basis, and to receiving his letter on the points. But I also look forward to hearing what he now proposes to do. If the example of what happened with the Police and Criminal Evidence codes is anything to go by, I do not think that the regulations can be enforced. They must be withdrawn and the process must start again. That was what the authorities in the House decided on the previous occasion. We had a new regulation and there was a further debate. On that basis, we cannot suddenly say, "We did not mean height: width; we meant width: height".
	I invite the Minister to withdraw the regulations with a view to resubmitting them in the appropriate form with this amendment and the others that he has agreed to consider.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation regarding the Police and Criminal Evidence regulations was different. It is difficult to see how one could pass regulations from which a page is missing. We would prefer to retain these regulations. We have realised that there is an error, and we will introduce amending regulations in due course.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I understand what the Minister says. However, it is certainly not for me, and I doubt whether it is for him, to make that decision. As I understand it, the legislative process is such that one cannot amend a statutory instrument, as the Minister seeks to do. It is not an erratum slip to change the regulations in such a major way. I do not suppose that we can take the matter further today—I certainly do not know enough to do so. However, in the light of what we have seen previously, I would very surprised if the regulations could be produced and taken forward as proposed.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Clerk has indicated that we are right in our decision, so I shall stand by it.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am bound by the rules of the House. If that is the case, and if "height: width" means the same as "width: height", and such a change is not an amendment to a statutory instrument, I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter. I very much look forward to his consideration of the qualitative points that I raised about how the regulations were drawn, with a view to seeing whether they can be improved in balance and fairness for British industry. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past three o'clock. Correction In col. 945 on Wednesday 15th October, the second contribution of the Lord Grocott was misattributed to the Lord Davies of Oldham.